Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S. Autolite (India) Ltd. D

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR. DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.206/2016 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. Versus M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd. D-469, Road No.9A V.K.I Area, Jaipur. DATE OF ORDER ::: 08.11.2016.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the appellant. 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal and whereby the Tribunalhas confirmed the order of CIT (Appeals). 2.Counsel for the appellant has raised the followingsubstantial questions of law which are reproduce as under: “(i)Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case the ITAT has erred in directing toallow carry forward unabsorbed depreciationof Rs.6706559/- against the profits and gainsof subsequent years without any limit.” “(ii)Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the ITAT has erred in directing toallow the unabsorbed depreciation broughtforwarded from A.Y. 2001-02 and earlier yearsagainst the income of Rs.15216223/-determined in the order u/s.143 (3)/154.” 3.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that boththe authorities have committed an error in reversing the findinggiven by the AO wherein after considering the circular and everything, the assessment was made. However, we have gonethrough the order of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT. 4.In view of the concurrent findings, relying upon thedecision of different High Courts i.e. General Motors India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT- 354 ITR 244 (Guj) and Ausom Enterprises Ltd.Vs. DCIT- 105 DTR 78 (Guj.) and a decision of Bombay HighCourt. 5.In that view of the matter Tribunal has observed as under: “The revenues has not pointed out, how thejudgments are relied on by the ld.CIT (A) arenot applicable on the facts of the presentcase. In our considered view, the ld. CIT (A)has rightly decided the issue in the light ofthe judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat HighCourt in the case of General Motors (India)Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we do not seeany reason to interfere with the order of theld. CIT (A). The same is hereby confirmed.Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the revenue arerejected.” 6.In view of the concurrent finding, no substantial questionof law arises. The appeal being devoid of merit standsdismissed. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR), J. (K.S. JHAVERI), J.