9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation or brought forward book loss for computation of book profit. 2. Legality of proceedings u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: 1. Set-off of Unabsorbed Depreciation or Brought Forward Book Loss for Computation of Book Profit: The assessee claimed a set-off of Rs. 27,71,74,222 as unabsorbed book depreciation for the assessment year 2002-03 while computing book profits, which was lower than the accumulated book loss of Rs. 35,29,21,966. The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) argued that the unabsorbed depreciation set off for the assessment year 2001-02 should reduce the amount available for set-off in the subsequent year, resulting in an available unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 12,98,94,247 for the assessment year 2002-03. The CIT directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to recompute the book profit by taking into account the adjusted brought forward loss as per the notice for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee contended that section 115JB mandates deduction of the lower of unabsorbed depreciation or loss as per the books of account and does not prescribe a specific method for computation. The assessee argued that the method adopted was consistent with section 115JB and supported by section 72, and that the computation filed by the assessee should be the basis for reckoning the amount to be set off against the profits for working out book profits u/s 115JB. The assessee also cited the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518, which states that in case of debatable issues, the view favorable to the assessee should prevail. 2. Legality of Proceedings u/s 263: The CIT invoked section 263, arguing that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT relied on the decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., In re [2006] 285 ITR 1, which emphasized that the computation of book profit u/s 115JB should start from the figures of similar computation made in the immediately preceding year. The CIT contended that the AO did not appreciate the issue and allowed the unabsorbed depreciation based on incorrect figures. The Tribunal examined the rival submissions and found that the CIT did not find any error in the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the revisional power u/s 263 is of wide amplitude but must be exercised within the bounds of law and fairness. The Tribunal emphasized that both conditions'error in the order and prejudice to the interests of the Revenue'must be fulfilled for section 263 to be invoked. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had adopted one of the permissible courses under law, and the CIT's disagreement with the AO's view did not render the order erroneous. The Tribunal cited several decisions, including CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518, which support the principle that when two interpretations are possible, the one favorable to the assessee should be adopted. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the twin conditions for invoking section 263 did not exist in this case. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal struck down the impugned order and restored the assessment order, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
