Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 812 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - MAT computation - additions under heads of income namely interest on decommissioning fund, Levy for decommissioning,R&M Fund,R&D Fund not included while computing the book profit u/s. 115 JB - notice u/s. 154 issued for including the said items - CIT directed the AO to recompute the income under the MAT provisions and to include the above items Held that - We find that while completing the original assessment the AO had called for details of 115 JB computation in the notice issued u/s. 142 (1) of the Act and the assessee had filed the requisite details. After considering the available material the AO had passed the original order. Not only this, later on he issued a notice u/s. 154 to include the same items for computing book profit, that the assessee had filed detailed reply in that regard. In the circumstances,we are of the opinion that the AO had applied his mind while passing the original order and dropping the rectification proceedings. We also find that the CIT had directed the AO to make the additions. Thus, he has left the AO with no option but to make additions.The provisions of section 263 of the Act permit the CIT to revise the orders which are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue but it does not give unbridled power to the CIT to take over the power of the AO and to decide the issue at his end. The provisions of section 115JB of the Act,were introduced in the Act with specific purposes. While computing the income under the said section certain items are to be added and certain items are to be deducted. AO or the assessee cannot travel beyond the Laxman Rekha drawn by the section itself. The disputed four items are not part of the list appearing in the section. Therefore,in our opinion,there was no justification for the CIT to use his revisionary powers in the case under consideration. It is to be remembered that the accounts of the assessee were audited by the C&AG and by a special auditor.They had not found any defect in the accounts prepared by it. Considering the above,we are not able to persuade ourselves to endorse the action taken by the AO u/s. 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Issues:
1. Assessment under normal provisions and section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition of interest income on various funds by Assessing Officer. 3. Revision under section 263 of the Act. 4. Jurisdiction of CIT in revising orders. 5. Compliance with section 115JB provisions. 6. Applicability of previous legal judgments. 7. Discrepancies in the case relied upon by the Departmental Representative. Analysis: 1. The case involved the assessment of the assessee's income under normal provisions and section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had completed the assessment, determining the income under normal provisions as nil and under section 115JB as a specific amount. However, certain interest income on various funds was not included in the computation of book profit under section 115JB. 2. The AO had added the interest income on decommissioning fund, levy for decommissioning, R&M Fund, and R&D Fund to the total income of the assessee under normal provisions but did not include these amounts while computing the book profit under section 115JB. The CIT, upon review, found this omission erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, directing the AO to add back these items to the profit as per the P&L account for calculating book profit under section 115JB. 3. The issue of revision under section 263 of the Act arose, where the CIT challenged the original assessment order by the AO. The CIT directed the AO to recompute the income under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions and include the previously omitted items. The Tribunal noted that the AO had applied his mind during the original assessment and subsequent rectification proceedings, indicating that the CIT's revisionary powers should not override the AO's authority. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the jurisdiction of the CIT in revising orders under section 263. It emphasized that the CIT's powers are limited to correcting orders that are both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, without superseding the AO's decision-making authority. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's intervention in this case was unwarranted as the disputed items were not part of the section 115JB provisions. 5. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of complying with the provisions of section 115JB, which outline specific items to be added or deducted while computing book profit. It noted that the disputed items were not included in the statutory list provided by the section, indicating that the CIT's revisionary actions were not justified. 6. The Tribunal referred to previous legal judgments, such as the Apollo Tyres Ltd. case, to support its decision. It emphasized that the AO's power in computing book profits is limited to examining certified accounts and making adjustments as per the section's provisions, without delving into additional inquiries beyond what is specified. 7. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the discrepancies in the case cited by the Departmental Representative, emphasizing that the facts and circumstances of that case were not relevant to the present matter. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and overturning the CIT's order. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis covered various legal and procedural aspects, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions, limitations on revisionary powers, and the importance of adhering to established legal principles in tax assessments.
|