Judgment :- K.A. THANIKKACHALAM, J. At the instance of the Department in the case of three assessees who are partners in the same firm, the Tribunal referred the following question of law, relating to the assessment year 1978-79, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : "Whether, in the case of a partner of a firm, which had become defunct, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the defunct firm which had closed its business in the assessment year 1978-79 must be carried forward and set off against the profits of the assessee from other business in the assessment year 1979-80 ?" The assessees were partners in a firm by name Sree Abirami Cotton Mills. This firm had been incurring losses year after year right from its inception. The firm was sold as a going concern in the course of the year 1978-79. The assessees had certain carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation relating to this firm. The assessee claimed that this carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation should be set off against his or her income for 1979-80, the year under consideration. The Income-tax Officer negatived the assessee's claim on the ground that as the business of Sree Abirami Cotton Mills in which the loss was incurred had been closed, the carried forward loss relating to it cannot be set off. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and contended that the assessees are partners in a number of firms, and the business of all these firms forms but one business and so long as one of these businesses exists, the carried forward loss of a defunct firm should be allowed to be set off against other business income of all the partners.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner while rejecting the assessees' claim for carry forward and set off of business loss, accepted the assessees' alternative ground and held that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to this defunct firm should be carried forward and set off against other business incomes of the assessees. Aggrieved, the Department filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department. Aggrieved, the Department filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department. Relying on the observation of the author in Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income-tax, Seventh Edition, at page 1294, the Appellate Tribunal held that the unabsorbed depreciation of the defunct firm should be set off against the other incomes of the assessee. According to the Appellate Tribunal, the set off of unabsorbed depreciation is permissible even in cases where the firm has become defunct. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1995 (216) ITR 607, 1995 (7) JT 322 , 1995 (5) Scale 718 , 1995 (6) SCC 466 , 1995 (129) CTR 189, 1995 (83) TAXMAN 343, 1995 (129) CTR(SC) 189 wherein the Supreme Court while considering the set off of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) of the Act held as under (at page 617) : "The next question is whether for availing of the benefit of section 32(2) , is it necessary that the business carried on in 'the following previous year' should be the same business as was carried on in the preceding previous year as has been held by the Madras High Court in East Asiatic Company (India) P. Ltd.'s case 1986 (161) ITR 135, 1986 (55) CTR 339, 1986 (26) TAXMAN 706 , 1986 (55) CTR(Mad) 339. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any words to that effect, no such requirement ought to be read into the said sub-section. A look at section 72 shows that where Parliament intended to provide such a limitation, it did so expressly. Section 72 deals with carry forward and set-off of business loss. The proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 72 expressly provides that such a course is permissible only where 'the business or profession for which the loss was originally computed continued to be carried on by him in the previous year relevant for that assessment year'. Section 72 deals with carry forward and set-off of business loss. The proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 72 expressly provides that such a course is permissible only where 'the business or profession for which the loss was originally computed continued to be carried on by him in the previous year relevant for that assessment year'. In the absence of any words to that effect, it must be held that for availing of the benefit of section 32(2), it is not necessary that the business carried on in the following year is the same business as was carried on in the previous year." In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the set-off of the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation of the defunct firm against the profits of the assessees from other business. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.