Learned Counsel On Either Side Fairly Submitted That The Substantialquestion Of Law Raised Before Us Have Been Answered Against The Revenue In Thedecision Of Ma v. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. Reported In (2020) 122Taxmann.com 212 (Madras). The Operative Portion Of The Judgement Reads Asfollows

OD-12 ORDER SHEETIA NO. GA/2/2017(Old No:GA/3718/2017)In ITAT/390/2017IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA VsM/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM And The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 10 DECEMBER, 2021 Appearance:Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv.Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv.…For the AppellantMr. Abrotosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv.Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv.Mr. Amitava Mitra, Adv.Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.Ms. Antara Choudhury, Adv.…For the Respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 22[nd] June,2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1161/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07.The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration : “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) despite the fact that the AssessingOfficer was carrying forward the unabsorbed depreciation loss beyond theperiod of eight years in contravention to the amendment made in sub-section2 of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act introduced by the Finance Act, 1996with effect from 1[st] April, 1997 ? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by not considering the decision of theHon’ble Apex Court in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.Ltd reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 258 (SC) ?” We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, learned Standing Counsel appearingfor the appellant/revenue and Mr. Abrotosh Majumdar, learned Senior Counselappearing for the respondent/assessee. Learned Counsel on either side fairly submitted that the substantialquestion of law raised before us have been answered against the revenue in thedecision of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai V. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. Reported in (2020) 122taxmann.com 212 (Madras). The operative portion of the judgement reads asfollows : “6. After elaborately hearing the learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue, we are of the considered opinionthat the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Peerless GeneralFinance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), would, in no manner, assist thecase of the Revenue. We say so after referring to Circular No.14/2001dated 22-11-2002 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxs, which areExplanatory Notes on Provisions relating to Direct Taxes. Paragraph 30 ofthe said circular deals with modification of provisions relating todepreciation.”appearing for the appellant – Revenue, we are of the considered opinionthat the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Peerless GeneralFinance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), would, in no manner, assist thecase of the Revenue. We say so after referring to Circular No.14/2001dated 22-11-2002 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxs, which areExplanatory Notes on Provisions relating to Direct Taxes. Paragraph 30 ofthe said circular deals with modification of provisions relating todepreciation.” Thus, following the above decision, the appeal filed by the revenue isdismissed and substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. With the dismissal of the appeal, the application being GA No.2 of 2017(Old GA No.3718 of 2017) is also dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SNN/S.De