2014 (11) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

MAT - Scope of section 115J - Deletion of interest from the purview of section 115J - Held that -Assessee contended that once the amount has suffered tax and its inclusion in the book profit was only for the purpose of reflecting the financial state of affairs, there was no basis to bring it under the purview of the tax once again under Section 115J - Notwithstanding the freedom given to an assessee to state its book profit in its annual report submitted as part of its obligation under the Companies Act, he is kept under obligation to be truthful - The book profit is liable to be increased or decreased, depending upon the factors that are mentioned in the explanation - one central theme is that the profit and loss shall be with reference to the relevant previous year - for their own reasons, the assessee did not want to reflect the income on corporate deposits in any form whatever. Though the facility to bring those very amounts u/s 115J of the Act was available for two AY 1988-89 and 1989-90, that was not resorted to, obviously because an AO is precluded from making any additions, deletions, or alterations to the profit and loss account, referable to Section 115J of the Act - it is only the authorities under the Companies Act that are conferred with the power to scrutinise such accounts - the mere inclusion of those amounts in the profit and loss account referable to u/s 115J of the Act for the AY 1994-95 did not make much of difference from the point of view of income tax - Bringing those amounts to tax once again, may be, u/s 115J of the Act could have resulted in anomaly if not absurdity - no provision can be understood or interpreted in such a way as to lead an absurd or anomalous situation - This principle gets attracted with added vigour, when a situation is brought about, by operation of two different enactments the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Disparity between profits reported in annual reports and those shown in tax returns.
2. Application of Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Inclusion of interest on inter-corporate deposits in book profits.
4. Double taxation of the same income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disparity Between Profits Reported in Annual Reports and Those Shown in Tax Returns:
The case discusses the disparity between the profits posted by a company in its annual report and those shown in the returns filed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. This disparity prompted the Parliament to enact Section 115JA of the Act, which mandates that if the profits reflected in the returns are less than 30% of what is posted in the books of account, the tax leviable would be 30% of the latter.

2. Application of Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
Section 115JA was enacted to address the issue of companies showing lower profits in their tax returns compared to their annual reports. The provision requires that the total income of a company, if less than 30% of its book profit, shall be deemed to be an amount equal to 30% of such book profit. The book profit is defined as the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year, subject to certain adjustments specified in the explanation to the section.

3. Inclusion of Interest on Inter-Corporate Deposits in Book Profits:
The respondent company included a sum of Rs. 3,81,48,960/- as interest on inter-corporate deposits for the four consecutive previous years (1985-86 to 1988-89) in its book profits. The company requested to exclude this amount from assessment, arguing that it had already suffered tax in the earlier assessment years. The Assessing Officer did not accept this plea, leading to appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

4. Double Taxation of the Same Income:
The respondent argued that the amount of Rs. 3,81,48,960/- had already been taxed in the earlier assessment years and should not be subjected to tax again. The Commissioner of Appeals partially accepted this argument, excluding the interest for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 but not for 1988-89 and 1989-90. The ITAT, however, accepted the respondent's contention for all four years, emphasizing that income cannot be taxed twice unless expressly provided by the legislature.

Analysis of the Judgment:

The court examined the provisions of Section 115JA and the concept of book profit. It noted that the book profit must be truthful and reflect the relevant previous year. The court observed that the interest on inter-corporate deposits for the earlier years could not be treated as income for the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1994-95.

The court emphasized that no amount should be subjected to taxation twice unless there is specific legislative sanction. It found that the interest on inter-corporate deposits had already been taxed in the corresponding assessment years, and there was no provision in the Act permitting it to be taxed again.

The court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that the profit and loss account prepared under the Companies Act cannot be scrutinized by the Income Tax Assessing Officer. However, the court noted that the explanation to Section 115JA allows for adjustments to the book profit.

The court concluded that including the interest on inter-corporate deposits in the book profits for the assessment year 1994-95 would result in double taxation, which is not permissible. It upheld the decision of the ITAT, which excluded the interest for all four years from the book profits.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the court held that the interest on inter-corporate deposits, having already been taxed in the earlier assessment years, could not be subjected to tax again under Section 115JA for the assessment year 1994-95. The court emphasized the principle that no income should be taxed twice unless expressly provided by the statute.

← Previous Next →