Income Tax Officer v. Jivraj Sizo-Fil Pvt. Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1132/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1132 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI andHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ INCOME TAX OFFICER....Appellant(s) Versus JIVRAJ SIZO-FIL PVT. LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 22/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No. 842/Ahd/2002 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. While admitting this appeal on 23.01.2008, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing set off unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation of Rs. 3,83,557/- pertaining to the earlier assessment years which fell beyond the period of eight years in view of the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act which came into force from 1.4.1997? 3.In our view, the amount involved in the present case is a small one and the revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, as per CDBT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27[th ]March, 2000 and 02 of 2005, the revenue ought not to have come in appeal where the total revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, this appeal is not entertained. The questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This appeal is dismissed on the ground of smallness of amount. Liberty to revive in case of difficulty. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya (K.J.THAKER, J)