9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the NPA provision has to be added back while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 6) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of ₹ 2,69,68, 00,000/- is not a provision but a write off. For all these and other grounds which may be urged at the time of the hearing of this appeal, the appellant prays that its appeal be allowed and the order of the Commissioner of Income tax be set aside. In the appeal filed for the next AY write off amount involved in Ground no.6 is ₹ 3,06,15,90, 902-/, otherwise both the appeals have same issues. First we are taking up appeal for the AY. 2003-04. 2. Appellant, a nationalised bank, had filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 declaring a total income of Rs. NIL. Tax liability computed by the bank under MAT provisions was ₹ 7,44,45, 176/-.The regular assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer(AO) on 16.03.2005 making various disallowances/ additions. He determined the total Income of the at ₹ 5,29,11,92,890/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profits at ₹ 1,94,85,35, 496/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoke the revisionery powers in the case under consideration was barred by limitation, that the mistake as pointed out in the notice dated 22.02.2011 of the CIT-2,Mumbai did not flow from the order dated 17.11.2008 giving effect to FAA's order, that same could not be revisioned u/s.263 of the Act. AR relied upon the cases of Infosys Technology Ltd.(18 taxmann. 68), Vijaya Bank(ITA/563/B/2011-AY2006-07-Banglore ITAT).DR supported the order of the CIT. 4.We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. The basic issue to be decided by us is whether the order passed by CIT-2,Mumbai on 28.03.2011 was barred by time-limit as envisaged by the provisions of section 263 of the Act ?As per the available record order u/s.143(3)of the Act was passed by the AO on 16.03.2005.Section 263(2) of the Act prescribes the time limit for passing revisionary order u/s.263 as under: "No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed." Therefore, the CIT had jurisdiction to invoke his revisionary power till the end of the Financial Year 2007.But,in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not relevant for the question under consideration do not help the issue at hand. In short, cases relied by the CIT do not strengthen his case at all. 4.1.On the other hand we find that the issue of time limit available under section 263(2) of the Act has been dealt by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. (supra).In that matter issue before the Hon'ble Court was to decide the time limit in light of the provisions of the section 263(2) of the Act. Facts of the case were that the AO had passed assessment order on 27-2-1997. Assesse preferred an appeal before the FAA. On 31.3. 1999 AO passed an order to give appeal effect to the order of the FAA. CIT vide his order dated 20-2-2001 passed under section 263 of the Act. In the appellate proceedings Tribunal held that the order of the CIT passed u/s.263 was barred by time limit. When the matter was argued before the Hon'ble High Court it was submitted on behalf of the Revenue that: (i)assessment order was subject matter of appeal and succeeded to some extent, (ii)while giving effect to directions of Appellate Assistant Commissioner, AO had passed an order afresh on 31-3-1999, (iii)the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed and the order of the Commissioner of Income tax be set aside. 5.1.As stated earlier, all the grounds of appeal in the year under consideration are similar to the grounds of earlier year-except for the amount involved under the head provision for write off. We have decided, in paragraph 4-4.2of our order, for the AY 2003-04, that revisionary action taken by the CIT was barred by time limit prescribed by the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act. Following the order for the AY.2003-04, we decide the appeal in favour of the assessee for the AY 2004-05 also. ITA/1600/M/12-AY.2006-07: 6.In the appeal filed for the AY 2006-07 following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee: "1) a. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) erred in passing an order u/s.263 and directing the Assessing Officer to modify the order u/s 154.Your appellants submit that the order of the CIT is illegal, bad in law and void and the same ought to be quashed. b. The appellants submit that the order of the AO is not erroneous and is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Your appellants therefore submit that the order of the CIT be quashed. 2) Without prejudice to the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the FAA issue of MAT provisions was raised. He relied upon the cases of Union Bank of India(ITA/4702-4706/ 2010 dtd. 30.06.2011),Indian Bank(ITA/469/Mds/2010 dtd. 03.08.2011 and ICICI Lombard 2012- TIOL-690-ITAT Mum. DR supported the order of the CIT. that . 6.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that issue of applicability of MAT provisions in the case of the assessee had arisen in the appeals filed by the assessee for the year 2006-07 (ITA/2337/M/2001-dtd. 03.04.2013)While deciding the issue we held as under : "9.2.We find that the issue of applicability of Section 115JB has been discussed by the 'B' Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Union Bank of India (supra) in favour of the assessee. In that matter Tribunal has held as under: "18. Ground No. 5 (in ITA No. 4706/M/10 -A.Y.2006-07) relates to applicability of the provisions of Sec.115JB 19.This issue is covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kurung Thai Bank PCL)(ITA No. 3390/M/90 dt. 30.9.2010.The Ld. CIT(A)however followed the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2001-02 in ITA No. 9061 / M/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
