COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HIMATASINGIKE SEIDE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is before us seeking for an answer to the following question of law: whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing the claim of the assessee for adjustment of the unabsorbed depreciation against the income from other sources was in order and hence cannot be considered to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue and in cancelling the order Under Section 263?

(2.) FACTS are as under:

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel elaborately for some time. Sri. Indra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue takes us to the provision of Section 10-B and also the other provisions of the Act to say that the Tribunal is wrong in reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of income Tax in the case on hand. According to him, the unabsorbed depreciation ought to have been taken note of for the purpose of exemption Under Section 10-B of the Act. According to him in the case on hand, the asseasee cleverly has chosen to show nil for the purpose of tax by way of novel method unknown to Income Tax Laws. He also says that the Commissioner was right in rejecting the case of the asseasee.