9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of computing the profit – yes, dditional tax under section 143(1A) of the Act can be levied on the assessee in rectification proceedings, which had not been made during the assessment year and that the prima facie adjustment and additional tax levied had been made in the original intimation itself - 443 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2008 - DEEPAK VERMA and K. L. MANJUNATH JJ. M. V. Seshachala for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DEEPAK VERMA J.— Heard Sri M. V. Seshachala, learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent even after service of the notice. 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come. Based on the information available in the return and other materials available with it, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make prima facie adjustment and proceeded to levy additional tax on Rs. 1,50,54,808.00 which worked out to Rs. 18,85,043.00 vide his intimation dated December 5, 1995. The assessee being aggrieved against this order, preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The Appellate Commissioner cursorily considering the matter proceeded to hold that no additional tax is called for. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee came to be allowed by him. The Revenue feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) preferred an appeal before the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s brought in the statute book retrospectively and the same provision would be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Subsequently, this whole provision has been substituted with effect from June 1, 1999. Since we are not concerned herein with the substitution provision in the instant case, we are not reproducing the same. 8. Similar question has cropped up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 200, wherein, after considering the aforesaid provision of law, it is held as under (headnote): ".....reversing the decision of the High Court, that the retrospectively substituted sub-section (1A) made it clear that even where the loss declared by the assessee had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
