PEARL WOOLLEN MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee-firm was assessed as an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1971-72. Unabsorbed depreciation of over a lakh of rupees remained after the aforesaid assessment. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee-firm was registered. When the case relating to the assessment year 1973-74 was taken up, the assessee wanted to set off the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the assessment year 1971-72 from the firm's income also but that was declined upto the Tribunal in view of the decisions of the Delhi, Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for opinion : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 32 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the depreciation allowance for the assessment year 1973-74 of the assessee, a registered firm, would not include the unabsorbed depreciation allowance for the assessment year 1971-72 and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the aggregate of the depreciation allowances for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1973-74 to be set off against the income for the assessment year 1973-74 and to carry over the unabsorbed depreciation left after such set off to the year succeeding the assessment year 1973-74 ?"

(2.) ON behalf of the assessee, reliance has been placed on the following decisions to answer the question in its favour.

(3.) CIT v. J. Patel and Co. [1984] 149 ITR 682 (Delhi) ; CIT v. Nagpur Gas and Domestic Appliances [1984] 147 ITR 440 (Bom) ; CIT v. Singh Transport Co. [1980] 123 ITR 698 (Gauhati) and CIT v. Nagapatinam Import and Export Corporation [1979] 119 ITR 444 (Mad ).