9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent to the date of order of learned CIT(A). 3. Facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessment order for the year under consideration was passed by the Assessing Officer on 22.2.2008. The Learned CIT(A) passed the appellate order on 31.10.2008 on the appeal filed by the assessee. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had added "Provision for doubtful debts" created by the assessee to the book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. The Learned CIT(A), however, deleted the same by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Comet System & Services Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5800 of 2008 dated 23.9.2008). 4. Subsequently Finance (No.2) Act of 2009 amended Explanation 1 to section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel appearing for the assessee challenged the rectification order passed by Ld CIT(A) on several grounds. He submitted that the first rectification order dated 27.3.2014 passed by Ld CIT(A) is barred by limitation, since he has passed the order after expiry of four years from the date of passing of original order. It was submitted that the original order was passed by Ld CIT(A) on 31.10.2008 and hence the first rectification order passed on 27.3.14 was after expiry of four years and hence it is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the Revenue should have filed appeal before the Tribunal, if they felt aggrieved by the order passed by Ld CIT(A). He submitted that the Revenue has circumvented the appellate remedy by filing the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by Ld CIT(A) in respect of addition of "Provision for doubtful debts" to the book profit. However, we notice that there was no occasion for the revenue to file appeal in the ITAT, since the Ld CIT(A) has passed the order on the impugned issue by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The AO has moved the petition on the basis of subsequent amendment brought into sec. 115JB by Finance (No.2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect. Hence we do not agree with the above said contentions of the assessee. 9. The Ld A.R contended that the question whether the Ld CIT(A) could rectify his order u/s 154 of the Act on the basis of the amendment brought into the Act subsequent to passing of the order is a debatable one and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by his order dated 26-6-1970 allowed exemption to assessee qua jewellery and ornaments under section 591)(viii) holding that they were intended for personal use- neither side filed appeal against this order and period provided for appeal expired-subsequently following amendment of section 5(1)(viii) in 1971 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1963, excluding jewellery from exemption clause, AAC rectified his predecessor AAC's order on 22.2.1972 and withdrew exemption granted earlier- High Court held that question whether amending Act applied to assessment which were already completed was a highly debatable question and, therefore, it was not a case of an error apparent on the face of the record which entitled AAC to rectify his predecessor's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly he contended that the amount debited to "Provision for doubtful debts" should be considered as actual write off of debts and hence the same cannot be construed as a provision made for diminution in the value of assets warranting addition of the same to the Net profit, while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. He drew support for this proposition from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (2012)(204 Taxman 305)(Kar) and CIT Vs. M/s Kriloskar Systems Ltd (ITA No.188/2013 dated 28-10-2013). 14. We heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra) has considered the issue whether the accounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sive value only. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of "Provision for doubtful debts" to the Book profit. 15. The assessee has moved an additional ground with regard to chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act on the addition so made by Ld CIT(A) on the basis of subsequent amendment. The submission of the assessee is that the assessee could not have visualised the subsequent amendments that may be made in the Act while estimating the amount of advance tax payable by it. Accordingly it was contended that the interest u/s 234B of the Act on the addition relating to "provision for doubtful debts" made to the Book profit. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision rendere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
