ORDER M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT dated 12.9.2014 passed in ITA No. 156/Ahd/2011, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue confirming the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) in holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 are liable to be set off against unabsorbed depreciation, the revenue has preferred present tax appeal with the following proposed substantial question of law. "[A] Whether in the circumstances and facts of the case and in the law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) that addition made u/s. 68 are liable to be set off against unabsorbed depreciation?" 2. We have heard Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue and gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) as well as the assessment order. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2004-2005 declaring total loss of Rs. 13,15,161/-. The assessment was completed on 26.12.2006 determining the total income at Rs. 19,71,948/- by making following additions/disallowances. (i) Unsecured loans received : 6,80,000 (ii) Peak credit of squared up loan : 7,00,000 (iii) Interest paid to others : 2,43,300 (iv) Sundry creditors for goods : Rs. 12,97,248 (v) Sundry creditors for exp. & Ors. : 3,66,561 4. While completing the assessment, the brought forward depreciation loss of Rs. 13,80,000/- was allowed by the AO to set off. It appears that thereafter, the case was reopened under section 147 of the Act on the reason that the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") with respect to unsecured loan and peak credit of squared up loans aggregating to Rs. 13,80,000/- does not fall under any of heads of income specified by the Act and therefore, cannot be set off against business loss/unabsorbed depreciation. That thereafter, the assessment u/s. 143 read with section 147 of the Act was completed by disallowing the set off of brought forward depreciation loss of Rs. 13,80,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the reassessment order disallowing the set off of brought forward loss of Rs. That thereafter, the assessment u/s. 143 read with section 147 of the Act was completed by disallowing the set off of brought forward depreciation loss of Rs. 13,80,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the reassessment order disallowing the set off of brought forward loss of Rs. 13,80,000/-, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the said appeal and allowed the set off of brought forward depreciation by holding that the assessee was entitled to set off to brought forward depreciation loss against income determined u/s. 68 of the Act, as per section 32 of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), the revenue preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal and by impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals). 6. On considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has heavily relied upon, considered and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. reported at (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC) and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) by observing in para 7 as under: "7. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC) has held as under: "Section 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood at the relevant time similarly provided that "all income shall for the purposes of charges of income tax and computation of total income be classified under six heads of income, namely (A) Salaries (B) Interest of Securities (C) Income from house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) Income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E." 8. Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E." 8. Thus, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount which has been deemed as income u/s. 68 is assessable as income from other sources and because of the same, it forms part of the total income of the assessee. 9. It is not in dispute that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against the income which is assessable under the head 'income from other sources.' We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). It is confirmed. The ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed." 7. Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has heavily relied upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in (201) 247 ITR 290 (Guj.). However, it is required to be noted that decision of the Division Bench of this Court is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned Tribunal. On considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is on the point, we are bound to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) holding and/or permitting the addition made under section 68 of the Act liable to be set off against unabsorbed depreciation. 8. No substantial questions of law arise in the present tax appeal and therefore, the present tax appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.