9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 397 - HC - Income TaxMAT - Book profit - whether the Assessing Officer while assessing a Company for income-tax under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act could question the correctness of the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee-company and certified by the statutory auditors of the company as having been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act? - Held that - Tribunal should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reference is placed. However, in the instant case, as we have observed above, once net profit shown in the profit and loss account of the Company has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to embark upon a fresh inquiry in regard to the entries made in the books of account of the company. Therefore, the question of remitting the matter to the Tribunal does not arise. In our view the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) that there cannot be two incomes, one for the purpose of the Companies Act and another for the purpose of income-tax. We are of the opinion that the provision of Section 115J does not empower the Assessing Officer to embark upon a fresh inquiry in regard to the entries made in the books of account of the company.
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of excess depreciation by Assessing Officer. 2. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act. 3. Proper disposal of appeal by the Tribunal. Detailed Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the disallowance of excess depreciation by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1988-89. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the method of computation of profit & loss, leading to the disallowance of excess depreciation. The appellate authority initially rejected the appeal against this decision, but the first Tribunal reversed this decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer cannot question the correctness of the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act, ultimately favoring the assessee. 2. The second issue pertains to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres case clarified that the Assessing Officer must rely on the authentic statement of accounts certified by statutory auditors as per the Companies Act's requirements. The Assessing Officer's power is limited to examining whether the books of account are maintained in compliance with the Companies Act, with the authority to make specific adjustments as per the Explanation to Section 115J. The court reiterated this stance in subsequent cases, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's restricted jurisdiction in questioning the net profit shown in the profit and loss account. 3. The final issue addresses the proper disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. While the appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision solely based on the Apollo Tyres case without detailed examination was improper, the court disagreed. The court emphasized that once the net profit is prepared in accordance with the Companies Act, the Assessing Officer cannot conduct a fresh inquiry into the account entries. As the matter was squarely covered by the Apollo Tyres case, the court found no substantial question of law for consideration and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the Companies Act's provisions in preparing financial statements, limits the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under Section 115J, and underscores the Tribunal's discretion in disposing of appeals based on established legal principles.
|
