9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 107 - HC - Income TaxComputation of book profits u/s 11JB Treatment of provision of bad and doubtful debts Effect of amendment - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of Bad and Doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing Book Profits computed u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, contrary to the provisions of clause (i) in Explanation 1 to the section 115JB(2) of the IT Act, inserted retrospectively from the A.Y. 2001-02 Held that - Assessee remained absent though duly served - the Assessee invoked section 115JB of the Income Tax Act but the amendment has been omitted from consideration by the Tribunal - the Tribunal rightly proceeded on the footing that the Assessee invoked section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961 - it is too late to contend that section 115JB was not the applicable provision - It will not be open for the Assessee to urge contrary to the order of the Court that this section is inapplicable as the bad debts were written of, the amount was treated accordingly in Schedule G to the balance sheet and the debtors account in the books of the Assessee was credited accordingly - all these are factual matters and ought to have been raised by remaining present before the Court or by pointing out to the Tribunal the relevant materials - The Tribunal did not commit any error in complying with the direction of the Court thus, section 115JB (Explanation 1 to subsection (2) thereof) was not applicable Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by ITAT under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2001-02. 2. Application of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act and its amendment. 3. Interpretation of provisions related to bad debts and book profits. 4. Discrepancy between the Assessee's statement and the Chartered Accountant's certificate. 5. Compliance with the High Court's direction by the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the ITAT's order under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. The counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in applying section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, specifically in relation to explanation (1) for subsection (2) of section 115JB. The appellant contended that section 115JB was inapplicable, and instead, section 36(2) should have been invoked. Reference was made to a previous Division Bench order that favored the Assessee, emphasizing the distinction between bad debts written off and provisions made in the books. 2. The respondent, representing the Revenue, supported the Tribunal's order and argued that the Assessee cannot claim section 115JB is inapplicable after a previous order directed the Tribunal to consider the matter under the amended section. The respondent highlighted that the Tribunal found only a provision was made, not bad debts written off, and thus section 115JB should apply. The respondent urged for the dismissal of the Appeal. 3. The High Court reviewed the impugned order and a previous Division Bench order, which directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter under the amended section 115JB. The Court noted discrepancies between the Assessee's statement and the Chartered Accountant's certificate, emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy. The Court upheld that section 115JB was the applicable provision, considering the Assessee's actions and the relevant materials before the authorities. 4. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal did not act perversely in recalling its earlier orders and complying with the High Court's direction. It was noted that the Assessee failed to raise factual matters earlier and could not now claim section 115JB was inapplicable. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's view was reasonable, and the Appeal did not raise substantial questions of law, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal. 5. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Appeal, distinguishing it from a previous case and highlighting the factual circumstances. The Court clarified that the Assessee's actions aligned with the application of section 115JB, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
