9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isputed by the Assessing Officer, according to him, the depreciation which related to the earlier years cannot be debited in the profit and loss account and a change thereof is not in order and calls for an adjustment to compute the income chargeable to tax under section 115J of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer, by disagreeing with the contention of the assessee that the change in the method of depreciation of the assets even for earlier year was permissible under the Companies Act by observing as under : “(i) The filing of the revised return by the assessee-company had nothing to do with the computation of liability under section 115J. (ii) In the arguments of the Authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation. For such reason the assessee-company was not competent to reduce the net profit in the accounts by switching over from one method to another for recomputing the depreciation. Also, for such reason the assessee-company was not free to exclude from the addition to the ‘book profit’ the amount of investment allowance reserve. (iv) Finally, if we may say so, lack of clarity in expression or presentation of argument in the assessment order is not ground to deciding an issue on merit or as per law.” We have heard the parties and considered their rival submissions. In our opinion, the claim of the assessee is covered by the various decisions of the Tribunal, viz., (i) Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in the case of Apollo Tyre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the position appearing in the present case as well. In view of the aforesaid three decisions of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the adjustment of the Assessing Officer while computing the book profit under section 115J is not warranted. He is, accordingly, directed to allow the claim of the assessee. The Revenue’s appeal is barred by limitation by 164 days. A petition for condonation was filed wherein it was stated that a period of 155 days was attributable to the fact that the appellate order and the assessment records in this case were somehow misplaced in the office of the Authorised Representative, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It has not been clarified as to how the records could come to the office of the Authorised Repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
