The Delhi High Court has held that unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years can be set off against income assessed under the head “income from other sources” under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act.
Disposing of an appeal in favour of Escorts Electro-nics Ltd, the assessee, a division bench comprising justice DK Jain and justice Sharda Aggarwal set aside the decision of the tax tribunal.
Escorts Electronics was initially incorporated as CGR India Ltd and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and assembling x-ray equipment. However, the business stopped from January 1, 1981 as the foreign collaborator withdrew.
Subsequently, the name of the company was chang-ed to Escorts Electronics. The company then filed its return for the assessment year 1982-83 for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1981.
The assessing officer not only disallowed the entire expenditure incurred by the company during the previous year but also the depreciation for the current year and the unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years.
Aggrieved, the company first filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and then before the tax tribunal.
The revenue department also filed an appeal before the tribunal as part of the commissioner’s order was not in its favour.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal of Escorts Electronics but allowed the revenue department’s appeal, holding that the depreciation brought forward from earlier years could not be set off against income from other sources.
Against this order of the tribunal, Escorts Electronics filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court. In setting aside the tribunal’s order, the bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Commissioner Income Tax (CIT) vs Virmani Industries; CIT, Calcutta vs Jaipuria China Clay Mines and Rajapalayam Miills vs CIT, Madras. In these cases the apex court had observed that the unabsorbed depreciation was not only to be set off against other heads of income in the relevant previous year but where it is carried forward, it “stands exactly on the same footing as the current depreciation”.