9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main ground urged before the Tribunal was that the Commissioner had erred in giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to recompute the income under section 115 JA (wrongly indicated as section 115JB in the impugned order) considering the impact of excess depreciation claimed by the assessee. 2. The Tribunal considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 ; [2002] 9 SCC 1 and noted that once the accounts have been certified by the auditor to have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, then the Assessing Officer will not have any jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer there-after has the limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to the said section. To put it differently, the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to section 115J." 4. While the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the present case fell under section 115JB we find that the present case is actually one under section 115JA. The Tribunal held that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Kovai Maruthi Paper and Board P. Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 57 was applicable to the present case. For this purpose the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uting total income under other provisions of the Act, he cannot disturb the book profit, which has been certified to be drawn in the profit and loss account as per the Companies Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous, which is one of the pre-conditions for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the act. Since it was not erroneous, it could not have been termed to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax. In the result, ground No. 2 is allowed." 5. We agree with the views expressed by the Tribunal. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
