Hence the assesses appeal for the assessment year 1968 69 under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.
On 14 3 73 the I.T.O. companypleted the assessment determining a loss of Rs.4,85,250.
These three figures were figures carried over from the previous year for the assessment year 1967 68.
7,87,573 The Income Tax Officer I.T.O. agreed that, out of the above three months, the unabsorbed development rebate pertaining to the assessment year 1967 68 had been rightly carried forward and set off in companyputing the total income for the assessment year 1968 69.
However, the petition of appeal gives a few facts which may be sufficient to dispose of the appeal.
The relevant facts are these.
3,49,242 Business loss Total Rs.
The assessee, M s. Garden Silk Weaving Factory, is a registered firm.
Harish N. Salve, P.H. Parekh and Sunil Degra for the Appellant.
For the assessment year in question, it returned a total income of Rs.3,96,483 and a provisional assessment, under section 141 of the Act, was made accepting the income returned.
They companyprised of Unabsorbed Rs.
However, for reasons which will become clear later, the Income Tax Officer was of the opinion that the sum of Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1974 and 16.10.1978 of Gujarat High Court in I.T.R. Nos.
1,59,181 which represented the amount of unabsorbed depreciation relating to the assessment year 1967 68 and the amount of Rs.3,49,242 which represented the unabsorbed loss pertaining to the assessment year 1967 68 companyld number be carried forward, as done by the assessee, to the assessment year 1968 69.
For the assessment year 1967 68, a full paper book companytaining all the orders and statement of facts has number been placed before us.
For this assessment year, the assessee filed a return on 30/6/67 showing a loss of Rs.7,87,515 but filed a revised return on 22/3/72 showing a loss of Rs.5,46,351.
2,79,150 Development Rebate Unabsorbed Rs.
Whether the claim of the assessee to carry forward and set off loss of Rs.3,49,242 against its total income for the assessment year 1968 69 has been rightly rejected?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The following two questions were referred to the High Court of Gujarat for its decision Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee registered firm is entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years and that it will be deemed to be an allowance in the nature of depreciation in the previous year, relevant to assessment year 1968 69?
A reference to the High, Court followed.
It upheld the Income tax Officers stand that the firm companyld number be allowed to carry forward and set off the business loss carried from the earlier year.
We shall set out the facts relevant for the assessment year 1968 69 as the appeals and reference in respect of that year were disposed of earlier than those pertaining to the assessment year 1967 68.
In the judgment under appeal, reported in 1975 101 ITR 658, the Gujarat High Court has answered the question raised in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees.
11,82,056 but deducted there three figures aggregating to Rs.7,87,573 to arrive at the net income of Rs.3,94,483 which had been returned and accepted.
1249/75 2075/79.
Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer found that, for the assessment year in question, the assessee had made an income of Rs.
Gauri Shanker, Sr.
The two appeals relate to the assessment years 1967 68 and 1968 69 for which the relevant previous years were the Saka years 2022 and 2023 respectively.
19 of 1973 and 318 of 1977.
and S. Rajappa for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. These appeals raise a question of some companyplexity on the interpretation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, The 1961 Act , in regard to which there is a difference of opinion among various High Courts.
1,59,181 Depreciation Unabsorbed Rs.
Hence these appeals by the assessee, M s. Garden Silk Weaving Factory, Surat.
The High Court, in a very detailed judgment, discussed the issues threadbare and answered both the questions against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
