9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, applicability of MAT provisions u/s 115JB, interpretation of income tax payable, revision proceeding u/s 263.
Condonation of delay: The appeal was time-barred by 80 days, but the delay was condoned as the assessee provided a valid reason for the delay, attributing it to wrong advice. The delay was caused by a misconceived understanding which was later corrected by Senior Counsel. Applicability of MAT provisions u/s 115JB: The Assessing Officer failed to invoke the provisions of section 115JB, leading to a higher tax liability of &8377; 7,56,694. The ld. CIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to non-consideration of these provisions. Interpretation of income tax payable: The Assessing Officer contended that income tax payable on total income should be computed after allowing rebates, contrary to the assessee's argument that the tax payable should be compared before allowing rebates. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported the assessee's interpretation, allowing rebate under section 88E from the tax computed as per provisions of section 115JB. Revision proceeding u/s 263: The ld. CIT invoked revision proceedings u/s 263 based on the non-consideration of section 115JB. However, since the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by previous decisions, the assessment order was found not to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. CIT should have considered the effect of previous decisions before invoking revision proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, as the non-consideration of provisions of section 115JB did not cause any prejudice to the revenue. The rebate under section 88E was to be allowed from the tax computed as per provisions of section 115JB, and the assessment order was held to be neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
|
