9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power to review its own order and, therefore, if the assessee wants to agitate the issue, which has already been decided by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has no power and remedy lies elsewhere. The case law relied upon by the AR in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1986 (8) TMI 57 - SUPREME Court) is nothing to do with the present case as it was delivered on different set of facts. - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of sec. 115JB would apply only if the company is required to adopt its accounts including the P&L account and place it before the company in the AGM, is itself not very convincing. Though, the first proviso to Sec. 115JB(2) put such a condition in place, the said condition itself cannot be considered as the final criteria for applicability of the provisions of sec. 115JB. I, therefore, concur with the finding of the AO that in view of the facts narrated in the assessment order, the provisions of sec. 115JB are applicable in the appellant's case. As regards the adoption of net profit of ₹ 713,21,55,919/-, the AO is directed to compute the same after obtaining necessary details in this regard from the appellant and compare the tax payable thereon vis-a-vis the tax payable under normal provisions to arrive at the tax payable by the appellant for the year." 5. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 19th March, 2010 in ITA No. 584/Hyd08 & 681/Hyd/08 held as follows: "16. Grounds of appeal No. 5 & 6 of the assessee in this appeal read as follows: "5. The learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his issue afresh at this stage. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed." 8. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us against the said order of the CIT(A). 9. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has not foregone his claim in the first round of litigation and, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are not ratio-decidendi. Being so, the AO has to decide the issue afresh in the light of the order of the Tribunal for AY 2007-08 in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 779 & 578/Hyd/2010 vide order dated 7th September, 2012 wherein the Tribunal held as follows: "12. The next issue is regarding the applicability of provision of Sec.115JB to the assessee bank. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee being a bank, the provisions of companies act will not apply to the assessee and hence the assessee will not be liable to tax u/s.115JB. 13. The provisions of Sec.115JB will be applicable to all companies. However, it is contended that Sec.115JB will be applicable only where the assessee is required to show profit & loss account in accordance with schedule VI of companies act. As the banks are required to prepare balance sheet and profit & loss acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. It may also be observed that having regard to the very heavy backlog of work in this Court and the necessity to restrict the intake of fresh cases by strictly following the criteria aforementioned, it has very often been the practice of this Court not to grant special leave except where the party cannot claim effective relief by approaching the concerned High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. In such cases also, the special leave petitions are quite often dismissed only by passing a non-speaking order especially in view of the rulings already given by this Court, in the two decisions aforecited, that such dismissal of the special leave petition will not preclude the party from moving the High Court for seeking relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. In such cases, it would work extreme hardship and injustice if the High Court were to close its doors to the petitioner and refuse him relief under Art.226 of the Constitution on the sole ground of dismissal of the special leave petition." 10. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the arguments of the learned AR of the assessee are misconceived and misleading as in the earlier occasion before this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
