Order v. Mr.varun Patel, The Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Revenue Very Fairly Pointed Out That The Issues Raised In The Present Appeal Are No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 836 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusSTEELCO GUJARAT LTD. ==========================================================Appearance:MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 13/01/2020 ORAL ORDER(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Act, 1961 (for short the “Act”) at the instance of Revenue and it is directed against the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad “A” Bench, Ahmedabad in the ITA No.328/AHD/2015 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2.The Revenue has proposed the following questions of law as the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:- “2(a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of carryforwardandset-offunabsorbed depreciation of assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 against the profit of assessment year 2008-09?” (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, learned ATAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee's claim of carry forward and set-off unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 against the profits of assessment year 2008-09 without appreciating the fact that the language of the sub-section (2) of Section 32 is clear and unambiguous and the amendment in the said section by Finance Act, 2001 was prospective w.e.f. 01.04.2002? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in allowing the assessee benefit of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 beyound the period of eight assessment years in contravention of applicable provisions being Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1[st ]April, 1997? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the departments appeal and allowing the assessee's claim of carry forward and set-off unabsorbed depreciation of assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 against the profits of assessment year 2008-09 by relying on the decision in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj) without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble High Court has given a construction to the language of the amendment to the provision of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act which actually amount to “casus omissus” as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Gupta v. President of India & ACIT Vs. Velliappa Textile Ltd. Appeal (Crl) 142 of 19947 dated 16.09.2003.” 4. Mr.Varun Patel, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly pointed out that the issues raised in the present appeal are no longer res-integra as those are squarely covered by decision of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2013 354 ITR 244 Guj). 5.We also take the notice of the fact that the very same decision has been referred and relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue, and thereby, confirming the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). 6.In the aforesaid view of the matter, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) GIRISH (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)