9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en offered to tax by the applicant-assessee in the assessment year 2004-05. The learned Tribunal was not shown to have been unjustified in rectifying its mistake. We as such are unable to hold that the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act. - ITA No. 467 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Asha Arora, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. M. P. Agarwal, Mr. F. Gaffer, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate ORDER The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 21st September, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal E Bench, Kolkata in M.A. No. 38/Kol/2007 arising out of ITA No.395 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by it after considering the crux of the issue involved under a miscellaneous application by a non speaking order, by simply stating that there had been a factual mistake. In passing the impugned order the Ld. Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? The Assessing Officer, in his judgment and order passed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, dated March 30, 2005, had made addition of ₹ 216.08 crores, for the following reasons: (i) Interest income on loans advances to Govt. of West Bengal and Interest on deposit with Pay and Accounts Office, Kolkata. It was noted as per notes on Accounts filed with audited accounts at Col.1(ii)(a) and Col.7(ii) that it has been men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted. Assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. Accordingly, on accrual basis, it should have offered the income for taxation. The CAG in their comments have also mentioned Non-recognition of interest income on accrual basis has resulted in understatement of profit by ₹ 216.08 crores. Accordingly, to arrive at true picture of profit, the amount of ₹ 216.08 crore is added back to total income. In an appeal, the CIT (Appeals) held as follows: (II) Although the assessee had not quantified the amount of interest receivable on deposits lying with the Pay Accounts office on the ground that the rate of interest on such deposits was not decided at the time of submission of the return of the appellant, the CAG in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2004-05 as will be evident from paragraph 3 of the impugned order itself which reads as follows: 3. This apart, there is another mistake on page 3 of the order of the Tribunal as pointed out by the Ld. Sr. Counsel with regard to ground No.XII that the amount of interest has been mentioned as ₹ 36,09,016/- instead of the correct amount of ₹ 36,09,31,016/-. The Ld. D.R. to this contention had nothing to say in rebuttal. Accordingly, the said rectification is hereby allowed. As a result of the modified portion of the order, the interest amount will be treated as ₹ 88.86 crores for the financial year 2001-02 which has been offered to tax by the applicant-assessee in the assessment year 2004-05. Mr. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
