2015 (1) TMI 791 - AT - Income Tax

Valuation of stock - Addition made u/s 145A - Condonation of delay of 368 days in filing appeal - AY 2007-08 - Held that - After the effect of ld.CIT(A) s order with regard to the addition made u/s 145A, there was no addition as it was neutralized by the adjustment made in the opening stock. It was in this background, the assessee did not chose to file any appeal before the Tribunal due to neutralization of tax effect. The reasons advanced in the affidavit filed by the Accountant of the assessee are not supported by any cogent or supporting evidence, but were self serving statement and that to be by an accountant. No material has been placed before the Tribunal to show that contents are correct. It is a mere assertion by an accountant who is not responsible person, the affidavit should have been filed by the Managing Director of the assessee-company. Thus, we do not find any bonafide reasons on the basis of which the delay of 368 days can be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted being barred by limitation. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed in limine. Deduction under section 145A - corresponding deduction u/s 145A on account of addition in the opening stock for the year not done - AY 2008-09 - Held that - On perusal of the impugned order, we find that in the earlier year the ld. CIT(A) has given direction to the AO that adjustment should made to the opening stock also in view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavira Aluminum Ltd 2007 (11) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI . Such a direction is to be carried out by the AO and consequential relief should be given. Thus ground no.1 is disposed off in the aforesaid manner. Deduction of proportionate Land Premium - Held that - The assessee had taken a land on leasehold bases in the year 1994-95 for a period of 80 years for a sum of ₹ 8,35,452/-. Each year the assessee is claiming 1/80th part of the lease premium as a deduction. The issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukund v. JCIT 2007 (2) TMI 358 - ITAT MUMBAI . Decided against assessee. Non-granting of MAT credit - Held that - The tax on normal computation under the other provisions of the Act is more than the tax computed on the book profit, therefore credit of MAT i.e. an amount of tax computed on the book profit u/s 115JA(1) is to be given on the amount of tax payable by the assessee on its income under the normal provisions. The ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that tax credit is to be allowed only on the tax computed under the book profit. Thus, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the AO is directed to allow the MAT credit being carried forward from assessment year 2006-07 and from assessment year 2007-08 on the tax payable under normal provisions of the Act. Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
2. Grounds of appeal raised for assessment year 2008-09.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed appeals against orders dated 7.1.2011 and 23.6.2011 for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively. The appeal for 2007-08 was time-barred by 368 days. An affidavit by the appellant's accountant claimed oversight in not filing the appeal due to not obtaining the Managing Director's signature. The Tribunal found the reasons insufficient as the appellant showed negligence in preparing and filing the appeal. The delay was not condoned due to lack of bonafide reasons, and the appeal for 2007-08 was dismissed.

Grounds of Appeal for 2008-09:
The appellant raised several grounds for the assessment year 2008-09. Ground 1 related to a deduction under section 145A, which was disposed of as consequential relief was to be given based on the earlier year's order. Ground 2 challenged the deduction of land premium, which was decided against the appellant based on a previous Tribunal decision. Ground 3 contested the non-granting of MAT credit, with the Tribunal finding the CIT(A)'s directions incorrect and directing the AO to allow the MAT credit. Ground 4 pertained to interest charged under sections 234B and 234C, deemed consequential, and the AO was directed to calculate interest as per law. Consequently, the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal's judgment, pronounced on 14th Jan, 2015, addressed the issues of delay condonation and the grounds of appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 comprehensively, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for 2007-08 and partial allowance of the appeal for 2008-09.