9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income through e-filing for the year under consideration on 31/10/2007 declaring NIL income, but, paid tax of ₹ 17,08,71,924/- under the provisions of section 115JB . The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) upon issue of intimation dated 18/03/2009. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The AO issued a questionnaire calling for information on certain aspects vide notice u/s142(1) dated 18/11/2009, served on the assessee on 02/12/2009. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a written representation vide letter dated 08/12/2009. The AO issued another notice u/s 142(1), dated 08/12/2009, calling for information and stated that it is the final opportunity to furnish the details called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of total income. b) Manner of determination of book profits for the purpose of section 115JB whereby the aforesaid additions totalling to ₹ 17,07,94,505 have been made in contravention of Explanation to the aforesaid section. c) Consequent excess determination of tax liability u/s 115JB and wrongly levying the interest u/s 234C for ₹ 19,50,051/-. d) Wrong calculation of interest on fringe benefit tax u/s 115WJ(3) and u/s 115 WJ(4) resulting in excess interest levied for ₹ 82,403/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the AO was not justified in making various disallowances and additions in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computed in the normal course was completely set off by the brought forward losses and allowances. Even though the appellant has preferred a no of grounds, in effect they are one only, i.e., the AO erred in disturbing the computation of income in the normal course as well as, as per the provisions of section 115JB. Regarding the allegations made, the AO has mentioned in the body of the assessment order that the appellant has to file various details but there was no complete compliance. It is seen in the body of the assessment order that the person attended the assessment proceedings on the concluding day has agreed for additions. In course of appellate proceedings, when this issue has come up that the person represented the case before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (other than 115JB provisions) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) observed that it is important to note here that section 115JB itself a self-contained code. No additions or deletions are possible and thus, whatever addition is made, being against the code of section 115JB, the same has to be deleted. Hence, the CIT(A) directed the restoring of the income computed by the appellant as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act at ₹ 1,51,12,20,047/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and facts of the case. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in accepting the additional evidence produced before him which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
