:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.928 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.928 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.928 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.767 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.767 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.767 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.774 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.774 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.774 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.905 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.905 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.905 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Surge Enterprises Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.F.V.Irani i/b.Mr.Amin Kherada for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the above, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law: a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the set off of un-absorbed depreciation brought forward for the earlier years against the present year, in which there was no business income at all? Whether such directions are contrary to the provision of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, which clearly lays down that such depreciation can be set off against business income and not against any other income? b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in relying upon the speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister, when the provision of the Act, does not allow such kind of set off? :2: 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that the speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister should be fully relied upon and in that behalf, he relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Varghese Vs. Income K.P.Varghese Vs. Income K.P.Varghese Vs. Income Tax Tax Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr. 131 ITR 597 (SC) Officer, Ernakulam and Anr. 131 ITR 597 (SC) Officer, Ernakulam and Anr. 131 ITR 597 (SC) and the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd Ltd Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 259 ITR 51 (SC) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 259 ITR 51 (SC) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 259 ITR 51 (SC). In both the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms had held that the Finance Minister’s speech can be relied upon to throw light on the object and purpose of the particular provisions introduced by the Finance Bill. The Finance Minister, in his speech, while introducing the Finance (No.2) Bill,1996, has stated as under: "Clause 11 of the Bill seeks to amend section 32 of the Income Tax Act,1961, relating to depreciation. During the course of discussion on the General Budget, a number of Hon’ble Members have expressed their apprehension that the proposed amendment limiting carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to 8 years will adversely affect the growth of industry. Similar apprehensions have been raised in a large number of post-budget memoranda. I would like to allay these fears. The proposed amendment is only prospective inasmuch as the cumulative unabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1st April,1997, can still be set off against taxable business profits or income under any other head for the assessment year 1997-98 and seven subsequent assessment years." 3. Mr.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Appellant does not dispute the Finance Minister’s speech and he also states that the same ought to be :3: relied upon for the purpose of interpreting the Section. In that view of the matter, there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in the above Appeals. Hence, all the above Appeals stand dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)