9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds, inter alia, raised in the instant appeal read as follows: 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the impairment loss on assets cannot be added to book profits u/s 115JB. 2.2 to 2.8 xxxxxxxxxxxx 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is a sick industrial company and therefore, as per clause (vii) to expl. To sec. 115JB(2), the profit has to be reduced in computing the book profit u/s 115JB. 3.2 to 3.5 xxxxxxxxxxxxx 4.1 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount of remission of the principal amount due to OTS cannot be charged to tax. 4.2 to 5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ground No. 2.1 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing medical consumables. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng before BIFR that reference before BIFR had abated on 26.08.2005, he held that since the assessee had come out of BIFR, its status as a sick undertaking does not exist anymore. In his opinion, the assessee had undertaken exercise of realizing the value of assets on putting the same to sale, therefore, its claim as a sick undertaking stood negatived. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee did not belong to exempt category under section 115JB(2) and accordingly proceeded to tax the entire book profits of the company in the impugned assessment year as ₹ .24,22,84,159/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal. Vide the impugned order and after considering the relevant provisions i.e. section 115JB(2) Explanation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with the well reasoned assessment order. Accordingly, he prayed for restoring the findings of the Assessing Officer. 8. On the other hand, the arguments advanced by the assessee support the order of the CIT(A) and findings contained therein. 9. We have heard both sides at length and also perused the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had filed a case in BIFR for declaring it as a sick undertaking. There is no quarrel between the parties that on 05.02.2003, the assessee was declared as a sick industry under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act above said and IDBI was appointed as operating agency so as to examine the viabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). We notice that nowhere the proceedings under SARFESI Act find mention to affect the status of a sick industry. In our opinion, the Act is a complete self-exhaustive code in itself. In our view, once the provision itself in the Act containing notwithstanding clause, we hold that other legislatures (in this case SARFESI Act) do not affect or alter the operation of the Act and provisions therein. Further, the language of section 115JB (2) Explanation 1 clause (vii) itself is very much clear that till the concerned sick industry s entire net worth become equal or excess of accumulated loss, it is entitled to claim the relief in question. Hence, we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and decide the ground against the Revenue and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
