9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Restricting the Minimum Alternative Tax ('MAT') credit and confirmation of demand: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -17 ('Hon'ble CIT(A)') erred in not appreciating the facts of the Appellant's case and the position in law adopted by the Appellant and thereby doing the following: a. Restricting the MAT credit under section 115JAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') to Rs. 34,38,72,162 (instead of Rs. 70,48,67,942 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income); and b. Confirming the demand to the extent of Rs. 46,32,69,200 as was determined in rectification order dated February 5, 2014, passed under section 154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer ('AO'). The App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, dated 23 May 2013, wherein the total demand payable by the assessee was determined at Rs. 83,97,11,920/- by the AO. 3. The assessee aggrieved by the adjustment filed a petition for rectification u/s. 154 before the AO stating that the credit of Rs. 70,48,67,940/- as claimed in the return of income u/s. 115JAA, pertained to the AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 has not been granted and also there is a consequential levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C amounting to Rs. 9,93,73,204/- and Rs. 3,60,30,036/-. 4. The learned Assessing Officer passed the order on such petition, after observing and held as under: "The contention of the assessee is carefully gone through and after verification of the records, it is submitted that: i. It is seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that under the scope and provisions of section 143(1), the AO could not have travelled beyond the return of income filed by the assessee and make adjustments based on some other record. The AO has denied the MAT credit on the ground that under the normal provisions of the Act in the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2009-2010, no MAT credit was available due to the additions made by the AO. He submitted that firstly, this cannot be the reason for denying the MAT credit and secondly, the additions made in those years finally stood deleted by the Tribunal, which vitiates the entire premise of the AO. In support he filed the copy of the Tribunal orders for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09 before us. On the scope of adjustment made u/s. 143(1), he strongly re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income the assessee has sought MAT credit of Rs. 70,48,67,942/- which has been reduced to Rs. 34,38,72,162/- on the ground that assessment was made under the normal provisions of the Act for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2009- 10 and, therefore, no MAT credit is available to the assessee for these years. If the AO had this information on record, then it was incumbent upon the AO to select the return of income for scrutiny u/s. 143(2), because this was a record pertaining to earlier years on the basis of which he could have reason to believe that assessee's claim in the return of income qua the MAT credit was excessive. Thus, we hold that the AO could not tinker with the return of income under the scope and ambit of section 143(1), because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
