9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under s. 234B and 234C of the Act since the total income was determined under s. 115J of the Act. 2. For the asst. yr. 1989-90 the AO computed the total income of the assessee-company under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, by an order dt. 24th Feb., 1992. The total income thus computed under s. 143(3) comes to Rs. 2,92,880 after adjusting brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation for asst. yr. 1988-89. In the same order the AO has separately computed the taxable profit of the company under s. 115J of the Act. According to this the chargeable profit under s. 115J comes to Rs. 11,11,550. In the discussion relating to the computation of chargeable profit under s. 115J the AO has negatived the assessee's claim for additional provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 205 of the Companies Act, 1956. The CIT(A) found that the change in method adopted by the assessee was one which was permitted by the Accounting Standards prescribed and was not barred by the provisions of Companies Act or by the provisions of s. 115J of the IT Act. 4. In the present appeal before us, the learned Departmental Representative, heavily relied on the order of the AO and pointed out that the assessee cannot claim depreciation which was not provided for in the books of accounts of the assessee for the earlier years. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee explained the reasons for the change in method for this year by reiterating the submissions made before the lower authorities. The assessee found that the bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence on record. As indicated above, the AO disallowed the assessee's claim of provision for depreciation relating to earlier years on the ground that there is no provision for providing depreciation for earlier years on a change of method either in the Companies Act or under the IT Act. The AO also took the view that the assessee was adopting a colourable device for avoiding taxes. However, this finding of the AO has been competently dealt with by the CIT(A) in his well reasoned order. For the sake of brevity it is not necessary for us to reproduce the elaborate reasons given in his order by the CIT(A) with which we fully agree. 6. However, we would like to especially emphasise the fact that the assessee's change in method of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or by the provisions of s. 115J of the IT Act, as there is no bar for a change in method of accounting relating to depreciation, especially when such a change is authorised by the accounting standards recognised for the purpose of Companies Act. Reliance in this connection is also placed on the following reported cases: (1) Beta Naphthol (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1994) 50 TTJ (Ind) 375; (2) Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1992) 44 TTJ; and (3) 47 ITD (Bom) (sic). In the circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A)'s order does not call for any interference. Hence, we uphold the impugned order in this respect. 8. The next ground of appeal is in respect of charging of interest under ss. 234B and 234C. The CIT(A) directed the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
