Commissioner of Income Tax vs Nagammai Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras ''B'' Bench made in I.T.A. No. 1201/Mds/98 dated 28.07.2004. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92.

The material facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are stated below:

The assessee filed a return of income on 31.12.1991 and inter alia claimed set off of various losses carried forward. The assessing officer restricted the allowance of set off of Rs. 7,13,116/- being unabsorbed depreciation available for set off relating to assessment year 1988-89 as per revision order for the assessment year 1989-90 dated 21.1.1998 and Rs. 9,12,398/- being unabsorbed investment allowance relating to assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 and thereafter determined the taxable income at Rs. 26,09,750/. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who following the earlier orders allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The revenue took up the matter on further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal while confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) remanded the issue to the assessing officer to reconsider the issue in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee''s own case for the assessment years 1993-94. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has filed this appeal by formulating the following questions of law:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the losses of the earlier years where the assessments had been completed u/s 115J should also be carried forward and set off, even after set off had been granted while computing the deemed income u/s 115J?

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the issue to the assessing officer when the same is covered in the departments favour by the jurisdictional High Court and the Apex Court?

Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Fab Exports (P.) Ltd., and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, .

Following the same, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the appeal is allowed.