9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 17 - HC - Income TaxComputation of book profit - adjustment of the prior period expenses in computing book Profit u/s 115JA - Revenue contending non-deduction of Prior period expenses since the same was not debited in the P & L A/c - Held that - Whether the prior period expenses were shown separately or not the assessee would nevertheless be entitled to have the adjustment of the prior period expenses in the matter of computing the net profit of the assessee. Thus on mere fact that the assessee had shown its prior period expenses in the extra ordinary items separately did not mean the net profit was arrived at de hors these items. In present case in computing the net profit assessee had adjusted prior period expenses rightly the assessee offered the book profit for assessment. No exception could be taken to the course adopted by the assessee in adjusting the prior period expenses in computing the net profit. Order of tribunal set aside. See CIT v. KHAITAN CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED (2008 (9) TMI 89 (HC)) - Decided in favor of assessee. Jurisdiction of Officer - Held that - Once the officer accepts the book profit he cannot travel beyond what had been disclosed in the book profit.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computation under Section 115JA of the Act, the prior years' expenses should not be deducted since the same was not debited in the profit and loss account? Detailed Analysis: 1. Tribunal's Decision on Prior Years' Expenses: The primary issue in this case revolves around the Tribunal's stance that prior years' expenses should not be deducted for the computation under Section 115JA of the Act since these were not debited in the profit and loss account. The assessee had deducted prior period expenses of Rs.96,94,693/- from the book profit shown. The Assessing Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal all held that prior year adjustments could not be reduced for arriving at the net profit of the current year. 2. Assessee's Argument: The assessee relied on the Apex Court's decision in 255 ITR 273 - APOLLO TYRES LTD., v. C.I.T., arguing that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 115JA is limited to examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer can only make increases and reductions as provided in the Explanation to Section 115JA and cannot embark on a fresh inquiry to re-compute the book profit. 3. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the assessee had not charged the prior year expenses to the profit and loss account but had deducted them from the profit after computing the same. Hence, the Tribunal's order was justified. 4. Court's Examination of Facts: The Court reviewed the profit and loss account and found that the profit for the year was reckoned after considering the prior year expenses listed under Schedule 'S'. The Assessing Authority did not dispute this fact but rejected the claim based on the view that prior year adjustments could not be reduced for arriving at the net profit for the year under consideration. 5. Legal Precedents and Accounting Standards: The Court referred to the decision in 255 ITR 273 - APOLLO TYRES LTD., v. C.I.T., where it was held that the Assessing Officer cannot reassess the company's income if it is prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. The decision in 300 ITR 251 - MALAYALA MANORAMA CO., LTD v. CIT reiterated this principle. The Delhi High Court's decision in 307 ITR 150 - KHAITAN CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. was also cited, which held that prior period items should be included in the determination of net profit or loss as per Accounting Standard (AS-5). 6. Court's Conclusion: The Court concluded that prior period expenses, whether shown separately or not, should be included in the determination of the net profit. The Delhi High Court's view that prior period items form part of the net profit or loss was upheld. The Court found that the assessee was entitled to adjust prior period expenses in computing the net profit and that the Assessing Officer could not travel beyond the book profit disclosed. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee. Judgment: The Tax Case Appeal was allowed, and the order of the Tribunal was set aside. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.
|
