AZAD BUS SERVICE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, stated the case and referred the undernoted question for answer with reference to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 13/ Ind of 1984 on the application of the applicant/assessee :

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. THE assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business of plying passenger buses. It had unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1977-78, Rs. 88,101 ; assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 96,161 and assessment year 1979-80, Rs. 44,594. For the assessment year 1980-81, there was no unabsorbed depreciation but the assessee had a net loss of Rs. 10,000 after allowing depreciation. In assessment year 1981-82, the assessee returned nil income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of income available at Rs. 98,655. THE Income-tax Officer, however, determined the income after allowing the current depreciation only and did not allow the claim of the assessee regarding set off of unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years. THE assessee filed an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ujjain Range, Ujjain, registered as Appeal No. UA 66 of 1983-84. THE first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. THE assessee preferred a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, registered as ITA No. 13/Ind of 1984. This appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for referring the following questions of law for reference to this court :

(3.) SHRI Vyas, learned counsel, submitted that the assessee at whose instance, reference is made, has chosen to remain absent and has, thus, not enabled the hearing of this reference. Under these circumstances, this court is not under obligation to answer the reference and he accordingly prayed that we should decline to answer the reference, In support of his contention, SHRI Vyas placed reliance on Jamunadas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] 38 MPLJ 462.