Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
M/S Oswal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., ... vs Acit, Ludhiana on 28 September, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.785 & 1093/Chd/2016
(Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10)
M/s Oswal Spinning & Vs. The A.C.I.T.,
Weaving Mills Ltd., Circle 5(1),
Plot No.92, Industril Area "A", Ludhiana.
Near Kwality Chowk,
Ludhiana.
P A N : AAACO1971H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri H.O. Arora
Respondent by : Shri Ravi Sarangal,CI T DR
Date of hearing : 31.08.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017
ORDER
PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.:
Th e s e t w o a p p e a l s h a v e b e e n pr e f e r r e d b y t he s a me assessee a g a i n st s e p a r a te o r d er s of Ld. CI T( A p p e a l s ) -2, Ludhiana dated 3 1 . 3 . 20 1 6 and 2 5 . 7 .2 0 1 6 re l a t i n g to a s s e s s m e nt y e a rs 2 0 0 8 - 0 9 a n d 20 0 9 - 1 0 r es p e c t i ve l y .
2. W e s h a l l f i r st b e t a k i n g u p t he ap p e a l o f t h e a s se s s e e i n I TA N o . 7 8 5 / Ch d / 2 0 1 6 .
I T A N o . 7 85 / C h d/ 2 0 1 6 :
3. Th e g r o u n d N o s .1 a n d 6 r a i s e d by t h e a s s e s s ee r ea d a s under:
"1. That the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without proper application of mind, as such it is not sustainable in law and facts of the case.2
6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed off."
4. Th e above g ro u n d s a re g en e r a l a nd n e ed no a d j u d i c a ti o n .
5. G r o u n d N o. 2 r a i se d b y t h e a s s e sse e r e a d s a s u n der :
"2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs.64,43,680/- made on account of Interest claimed U/S 36 (1) (iii) of the IT. Act, 1961. The disallowance confirmed is not based on proper appraisal of facts and law in the matter."
6. Th i s g r o u n d r e l at e s t o d i s al l o w an c e m a d e o n acc o u n t o f i n t e r e s t c l a i m e d , u / s 3 6 ( 1 ) ( i i i ) o f t h e I n c om e Ta x A c t , 1 9 6 1 ( i n s h o r t ' th e A c t ' ) , a m o u nt i n g t o R s .6 4 , 4 3 ,68 0 / - .
7. Bri ef facts rel ati ng to the i ssue are that duri ng assessment proceedi ngs the Ass essi ng Offi cer n oti ced that the assessee had gi ven l oans and advances to the fol l o wi ng parti es:
Name Amount Purpose
1.Oswal Agroils Ltd. Promotion of the company
1,42,524/-
2.Adinath Advance for purchases
Traders Pvt.Ltd. 1,83,55,583/-
3.Neminath Advance for purchases
Textile Pvt.Ltd. 1,42,39,795/-
4.Oswal Oil Mills 46,15,820/- Advance for purchases
5.Oswal Overseas 1,63,43,620/- Advance for purchases
6.Ospin Traders P. 1,95,00,379/- Advance for purchases
7,31,97,721/-
8. On bei ng asked to e xpl ai n the busi ness e xpedi ency for the same, the as sessee stated th at the l oans and advances from Seri al No s.2 to 5 were outstandi ng fo r busi ness transacti on of sal e/purchase. Further the assessee stated 3 that the l oans and advances pertai ni ng to M/s Os wal Agroi l s Ltd. was ol d bal ance and di sal l o wance of i nterest on account of the same mad e u/s 36( 1) ( i i i ) o f the Act for ear li er years had been del eted by the CI T( Appeal s) , Ludhi ana as per order dated 20.8.2010. The Assess i ng Offi cer re j ected the contenti on of th e assessee stati ng that the ass essee had fai l ed to e xpl ai n ho w the busi ne ss purpose was served by advanci ng these l oans. He further poi nted out that the assessee company was a si ck uni t i ncurri ng l osses of more than Rs.46 crore s and i t had avai l ed secured and unsecured l oans amounti ng to Rs.43.87 crores for whi ch interest of Rs.5.16 crores had been pai d. The Assessi ng Offi cer al so poi nted out that the l oans had been gi ven to company i n whi ch the rel ati ves of the di recto rs of the assesse e company were di rectors. He further stated that had the a ssessee not advanced these mone ys, he woul d have i ncurred mi ni mum i nterest e xpendi ture. The Ass essi ng Offi cer, therefore, di sal l o wed i nterest pertai ni ng t o aforesai d adv ances u/s 36( 1) ( i i i ) of the Income Ta x Act,1 961,computi ng the same at Rs.64,43,680/-
9. Before the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) , the assessee rei terated the contenti ons made before the Assessi ng Off i cer. The Ld.CI T( Appeal s) uphel d the orde r of the Assessi ng Offi cer stati ng that the assessee had contended that the advances were gi ven agai nst purchase of propert y whi ch had not been acqui red duri ng the year and si n ce admi ttedl y, th e purchase and sal e of propert y was not the busi ness of the assessee, 4 the di sal l o wance of i nterest made was warranted. The rel evant fi ndi ngs of the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) at para 4.4 & 3.8 of the order are as under:
"4. 4 I h ave c aref ul l y cons idere d the appel l an ts sub miss ion. I h ave al so gone through assess men t orde r. It is an ad mi tted f ac t th at purch ase and s al e of pro pertie s is no t the bus iness of th e appel l an ts c o mp an y. T he appel l an t h as c on tended th at the adv ances we r e g iven ag ain s t purch ase of pro per ty wh ich h as no t been ac qu ired dur ing th e ye ar, hence c anno t be ter med th at the s ame h as been pu t to use.
.
.
.
"3.8 After careful consideration of all the facts, I am also inclined to agree with the contention of Id. AO. In the case of these advances the appellant has clearly failed to adduce evidence w.r.t. any commercial expediency as this is not the business object of appellant concern. So advancing this huge amount without bringing any facts of business expediency is not allowable. The business purpose of these advances are not clear as the appellant has failed to controvert any logic behind these advances. The appellant company is a sick unit. The appellant has advanced huge amount to those co., wherein related set of directors or concerns are involved. The advance given by the appellant could not be satisfactorily explained as there is no element of commercial expediency."
10. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) had total l y m i s-appreci ated the facts of the case as repeatedl y poi nted out by the assessee before the AO and the CI T( A) . The Ld. coun sel for assessee poi nted out that the assessee had repeatedl y contended that i t was i n the busi ness of manufacturi ng and tradi ng of edi bl e oi l s and sol vent oi l s and the sai d advances pertai ned to sale made to 5 the sai d parti es. The Ld. counsel for assessee poin ted out to the submi ssi ons made before the Assessi ng Offi cer and CI T( Appeal s) i n thi s regard. Th e Ld. counsel for assessee thereafter poi nted out that the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) had mi s- appreci ated the f acts by stati ng t hat the sai d adv ances were gi ven agai nst purchase of propert y as contended by the assessee. The Ld. counsel for assessee stated, therefore, that the i ssue had not been consi dered in the correct backdrop of the facts of the case.
11. The Ld. DR, fai rl y agreed wi th thi s contenti on of the assessee.
12. Havi ng heard both the parti es and havi ng gone through the order of t he Ld.CI T( Appeal s) , we agree wi th the contenti on of the Ld. counsel for assessee that the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) has mi s-appreci ated the facts of the case. Undoubtedl y, al l al ong i t was the case of the assessee that the sai d advanc es has been gi v en on account o f busi ness transacti on of sal e/purchase made. Evi dence i n this regard by wa y of l edger account of the parti es have al so been fi l ed and the sai d fac t fi nds menti on i n the l etters su bmi tted to the Ld.CI T( A) pl aced at Paper B ook page No. 43 . But the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) adjudi cated the i ssue by total l y mis-stati ng the fact that th e advances were made for purch ase of the propert y. I n vi ew of the same, we consi der i t fit to restore the matter back to the fi l e of the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) to adjudi cate the i ssue afresh i n the l i ght of submissi ons and evi dences fi l ed by the assessee and correctl y a ppreci ati ng 6 the facts of the case. We ma y add that the assessee be gi ven due opportuni t y of heari ng i n thi s regard.
The ground of a ppeal No.2, ther efore, stands al l owed for stati sti cal purposes.
13. Ground Nos.3 and 4 rai sed by the assessee reads as under:
"3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming Ld. Assessing Officer's action in holding that unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000- 2001 and 2001-02 is not eligible for carried forward for and set off in subsequent years. Provisions of Section 32 (2) of the l.T. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the appellant's case.
4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to consider appellant's contention that they are Sick Industrial unit, as such the amended provisions of section 32 (2) of the l.T. Act, 1961 are not applicable.
Proviso of Section 32 (2) of the l.T. Act, 1961 has not been construed and appraised properly in the appellant's case, which has resulted in erroneous order and untenable conclusion."
14. The i ssue in t he present grou nd pertai ns to carr y for ward of deprec i ati on pertai ni ng to assessment ye ars 1997- 98 to 2001-02 f or setti ng off agai nst profi ts ,as per secti on 32( 2) of the Act.
15. Bri efl y stated, the assessee had duri ng the i mp ugned year brought for ward busi ness l osses and unabsorbed depreci ati on from precedi ng yea rs, perusal of th e detai l s of whi ch sho wed that the asses see had broug ht for ward unabsorbed depreci ati on pertai ni ng to the peri od 1997-98 to 2001-02. The A ssessi ng Offi cer hel d that the u nabsorbed depreci ati on for thi s peri od coul d not be al l owed to be 7 carri ed for ward for more than 8 years immedi atel y succeedi ng the a ssessment year t o whi ch the y per tained as per the provi si on s of secti on 32( 2 ) of the Act. He, therefore, deni ed carri ed for ward of unabsorbed depreci ati on pertai ni ng to th e aforesai d peri od pl aci ng rel i a nce on the judgment of the Speci al Bench of the I . T.A. T. i n t he case of DCI T Vs. Ti me s Guarant y Ltd. In I TA Nos.4917 & 4918/Mumbai /2008. The Ld.CI T( Appeal s) uphel d the order of the Assessi ng Offi cer stat i ng that even the I TA T Chandi garh Bench i n the case of M/s Li bert y Pl ywood P. Ltd. Vs. ACI T i n I TA No.727/Chd/2012 dated 17.12. 2012 ha d deci ded the i ssue i n favour of the Revenue.
16. Before us, the Ld . counsel for ass essee poi nted ou t that the i ssue has been adjudi cated no w by vari ous High Courts i n favour of the assessee and also by the I . T.A. T., Del hi & Kol katta Bench. The Ld. coun sel for assessee dre w our attenti on to the fol l o wi ng deci si ons i n thi s regard:
1) General Motors Indi a ( P) Ltd. Vs. DCI T 354 I TR 244 ( Guj) .
2) Mi nda Sai Ltd. Vs. I TO, 167 TTJ 6 89 ( Del )
3) JC T Li mi ted Vs. CI T-I V, Kol kata ( 2016) 159 I TD 983
4) Karnataka Co-operati ve Mi l k Producers Federati on Ltd. Vs. DCI T ( 2011) 53 D TR ( Kar) 81
17. The Ld.DR on th e other hand, rel i ed upon the ord er of the Ld.CI T( Appeal s) .
18. W e h a v e h e a r d c o n t e n t i on s o f bo t h t h e p a r t i e s . The i ssue i n the present ground pertai ns to carr y for ward of 8 unabsorbed depreci ati on pertai ni ng to assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 as per the provi si ons of secti on 32( 2) of the Act.
19. To u nderstand the i ssue correc tl y the provi si o ns of secti on 32( 2) of the I ncome Ta x Act, 1961 as i t e xisted at vari ous poi nts o f ti me needs to be set out. Begi nning wi th the peri od pri or to the amendment made by Fi nance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1 s t Apri l ,1997 as per secti on 32( 2) , i n the eventual i t y of i nsuffi ci ent profi ts and gai ns to adjust the depreci ati on al l o wance for a y ear, then subje ct to the provi si ons of se cti on 72( 2) and 73( 3) , the amou nt of such unadjusted al l o wance woul d be added to the amount of depreci ati on al l o wance for the fol l o wi ng year deeming i t to be part of the same and so on for eterni t y.
20. The Fi nance ( No.2) Act, 1996,substi tuted the provi si on of secti on 32( 2) restri cti ng the carry for ward and set off of unabsorbed depreci ati on agai nst i ncome ari si ng under the head Busi ness and Professi on, to ei ght assessment years i mmedi atel y succeedi ng assessment year for whi ch the aforesai d depreci ati on al l o wance was computed.
21. Fi nance Act, 200 1, further substi tuted the provi si on of secti on 32( 2) w.e.f. 1 s t Apri l 2002 rei nforci ng the provi si on as i t e xi sted i ni tial l y i .e. pri or to i ts substi tuti on by Fi nance ( No.2) Act 1996, al l o wi ng carr y for ward and set off of unabsorbed depreci ati on i n etern i t y wi th no rest ri cti on on the peri od.
9
22. The Revenue i n the present ca se has i nterpret ed the secti on, as amen ded at vari ous p oi nts of ti me, so as to hol d that the restri ction appl i cabl e to the ti me peri od of carr yi ng for ward and sett i ng off unabsorb ed depreci ati on pertai ni ng to the peri od 19 96-97-2000-01, woul d not be di l u ted by the l ater amendment to the secti o n. In effect meani ng that unabsorbed depreci ati on rel ati ng to thi s peri od woul d be al l o wed to be car ri ed for ward and set off onl y for succeedi ng ei ght years. Thi s vi e w was e xpre ssed by the Spec i al Bench deci si on of I TA T Mumbai i n the case of Ti mes Guarant y ( supra) . But as ri ghtl y poi nted out by Ld.Counsel for the assessee the Hon'bl e Gujarat Hi gh Court i n the case of General Motors I ndi a ( P) Ltd. ( su pra) has categori cal l y hel d that the depreci ati on pertai ni ng to assessment year 1997-98 coul d be al l o wed to be carri ed f or ward and set off after a peri od of 8 years. The Hon'bl e Hi gh court hel d that the unabsorbed depreci ati on avai l abl e to an assessee on 01-04- 2002 woul d be deal t wi th i n accordance wi th the provi si ons of secti on 32( 2) as amended by Finance Act ,2001 and not by the provi si on of secti on 32( 2) as it stood before the amendment. Re ference was al so made to the CBD T Circul ar No. 14 of 2001 vi de whi ch it was cl ari fi ed that the restri cti on of 8 years for carr y for ward and set off of unabsorbed depreci ati on had been di spensed wi th. Th e rel evant fi ndi ngs of the Hon'bl e Hi gh Court are as under:
" 37. The CBDT Circular clarifies the intent of the amendment that it is for enabling the industry to conserve sufficient funds to replace plant and machinery and accordingly the amendment dispenses with the restriction of 8 years for carry 10 forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation. The amendment is applicable from assessment year 2002-03 and subsequent years. This means that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April, 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of section 32(2) as it stood before the said amendment. Had the intention of the Legislature been to allow the unabsorbed depreciation allowance worked out in A.Y. 1997-98 only for eight subsequent assessment years even after the amendment of section 32(2) by Finance Act, 2001 it would have incorporated a provision to that effect. However, it does not contain any such provision. Hence keeping in view the purpose of amendment of section 32(2) of the Act, a purposive and harmonious interpretation has to be taken. While construing taxing statutes, rule of strict interpretation has to be applied, giving fair and reasonable construction to the language of the section without leaning to the side of assessee or the revenue. But if the legislature fails to express clearly and the assessee becomes entitled for a benefit within the ambit of the section by the clear words used in the section, the benefit accruing to the assessee cannot be denied. However, Circular No.14 of 2001 had clarified that under Section 32(2), in computing the profits and gains of business or profession for any previous year, deduction of depreciation under Section 32 shall be mandatory. Therefore, the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 would allow the unabsorbed depreciation allowance available in the A.Y. 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001- 02 to be carried forward to the succeeding years, and if any unabsorbed depreciation or part thereof could not be set off till the A.Y. 2002-03 then it would be carried forward till the time it is set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years.
38. Therefore, it can be said that, current depreciation is deductible in the first place from the income of the business to which it relates. If such depreciation amount is larger than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excess comes for absorption from the profits and gains from any other business or business, if any, carried on by the assessee. If a balance is left even thereafter, that becomes deductible from out of income from any source under any of the other heads of income during that year. In case there is a still balance left over, it is to be treated as unabsorbed depreciation and it is taken to the next succeeding year. Where there is current depreciation for such succeeding year the unabsorbed depreciation is added to the current depreciation for such succeeding year and is deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. And once the Circular No.14 of 2001 11 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y.1997-98 upto the A.Y.2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever."
23. Even the Del hi Bench of the I . T.A. T. i n the ca se of Mi nda Sai Ltd. ( supra) and the Kol katta Bench of the I TA T i n the case of JC T Ltd.( su pra) aft er taki ng i nto co nsi derati on the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Gujarat Hi gh Court i n the case of General Motors I ndi a ( P) Ltd. ( supra) has rei te rated the above proposi ti on.
24. In the l i ght of the above judi ci al precedence, especi al l y the Gujarat Hi gh Court i n the case of General Motors I ndi a Pvt.Ltd. ( supra) , we hol d that the assessee i s enti tl ed to carr y for ward unabsorbed depreci ati on pertai ni ng to assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02.
Ground Nos.3 and 4 rai sed by the assessee therefore stand al l o wed.
25. Ground No.5 rai sed by the assessee reads as under:
"5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming following expenses incurred by the Appellant for business purposes:-
(a) Rs. 82,661/- out of Puja and Shagun Expenses.
(b) Rs. 50,000 out of Travelling Expenses."
26. The above grou nd was not pressed before us by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee consi deri ng the smal l ness of the amount. I n vi e w of the same, ground No.5 i s di smi ssed and 12 at the same time, we ma y add that it shoul d not be consi dered as a precedent for i denti cal i ssue rai sed i n any other year for the assessee.
27. I n e f f e ct , t h e ap p e a l o f t h e ass e s s e e st a n d s pa r t l y allowed.
I T A N o . 1 09 3 / C hd / 2 0 1 6 :
28. Th e assessee in this appeal has raised following grounds:
"1. That the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without proper application of mind, as such it is not sustainable in law and facts of the case.
"2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs.16,46,045/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.64,43,680/-) made on account of Interest claimed U/S 36 (1) (iii) of the IT. Act, 1961. The disallowance confirmed @ 10% against 12% made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have been deleted entirely.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the Appellant has advanced huge amounts to those companies wherein related set of Directors or concerns are involved, the facts of the case have not been appraised properly, which has resulted in untenable conclusion and misplaced finding. Provisions of Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the matter. The disallowance confirmed is based on surmises and on records.
4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming Ld. Assessing Officer's action in holding that unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1999-2000,2000-2001 and 2001-02 is not eligible for carried forward for set off in subsequent years. Provisions of Section 32 (2) of the IT. Act,1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the appellant's case.
5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming Ld. Assessing Officer's action in holding that unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to 13 Assessment Years 1999-2000,2000-2001 and 2001-02 is not eligible for carried forward for set off in subsequent years. Provisions of Section 32 (2) of the IT. Act,1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the appellant's case.
6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.41,299/- on account of Puja expenses. Expenses incurred for business purpose have wrongly been disallowed, although the appellant has never agreed for the addition.
7. That the additions and disallowances confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) are misplaced, untenable, contrary to law and in any case these are highly excessive. The order is devoid of judicious and rational approach.
8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed off."
29. G r o u n d N o. 1 r a i s e d b y the a s s e s s e e i s ge n e r a l a n d h e n c e n e ed s n o ad j u d i c a t i o n .
30. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee in this a p p e a l re l a t e t o d i s a l l o w a n c e ma d e o n a c c o u nt o f i n t er e s t c l a i m e d u / s 3 6( 1 ) ( i i i ) o f t he A c t a n d i s i d e n t i c al t o g r o u n d N o . 2 r a i se d b y th e a s s e s se e i n I TA N o . 7 8 5 / C h d /2 0 1 6 .I t was c o m m o n g r o u nd b e t w e e n b o t h t he p a r t i e s t h a t t he f a c t s i n t h e i m p ug n e d y ea r w e r e i d e n ti c al t o t ha t i n t h e p r e c e d i n g y e a r , d e c i de d b y u s a b o v e i n I TA n o . 7 8 5 / C hd / 2 0 16 . S i n c e i n t h a t c a s e th e i s su e h a s b e e n r e s to r e d b a c k to t h e C I T( A ) t o d e c i d e i t af r e s h , t h e d e c i s i o n r en d e r e d t h e r e i n w i l l a pp l y m u t a t i s m ut a n di s i n t h e s e g rou n d s a l s o a n d a c c o r d i n gl y t h e i s s u e i n t he s a i d g r o u n d s a r e r e s t o r e d ba c k t o be decided a fr e s h by the CI T( A ) .W e may add th a t proper o p p o r t u n i t y b e g i v e n t o t he a s s es se e i n t hi s r e g ar d . 14
G r o u n d N o .2 & 3 o f t h e a p p ea l a r e , t h e r ef o r e , al l o w e d f o r s t a ti s t i c al p ur p o s e s .
31. G r o u n d N o s. 4 a n d 5 r a i s e d b y t h e a s s e s s e e i n t h i s a p p e a l r e l a te t o carr y for ward for depreci ati on pertai ni ng to assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 as per secti on 32( 2) of the Act, and i t was common ground bet ween both the parti es that the y were i d enti cal to ground Nos. 3 and 4 rai sed by the assessee i n I TA N o . 7 8 5 /C h d / 20 1 6 . Th e d e c i s i on r e n d e r ed therein will t he r e f o r e apply wi t h e q u al f o rc e in t h es e g r o u n d s al s o .
G r o u n d N os . 4 & 5 a r e , t he r e f o re , a l l o w e d .
32. G r o u n d N o . 6 r a i s e d b y t h e a s s e ss e e i s n o t p r e s s ed a n d i s i d e n t i ca l t o gr o u n d N o . 5 ra i se d b y t h e a s s ess e e i n I TA N o . 7 8 5 / C hd / 2 0 16 a n d t h e d e c i si o n r e n d e r e d t he r e i n w i l l a p p l y m u ta t i s mu t a n d i s i n t h i s gr o u n d a l so .
G r o u n d N o. 6 t h er e f o r e st a n d s di sm i s s e d .
33. I n t h e r es u l t , bo t h t h e a pp e a l s o f t h e a ss e s s ee a re p a r t l y a l l o w e d.
O r d e r p r on o u n c ed i n t h e O p e n Cou r t .
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 28 t h September, 2017
*Rati*
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT
5. The DR
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Chandigarh