9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). In the computation of income, the assessee reflected business loss including investment allowance and depreciation at Rs. 1,19,40,250. 3. Thereafter on24th Sept., 1990, assessee filed a revised return declaring therein a loss of Rs. 1,87,38,960. Reasons for revising the return was stated to be the claim for 100 per cent depreciation on plant and machinery used below the surface of earth. 100 per cent depreciation on plant and machinery comes to Rs. 1,82,59,549. In the original return assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 33.33 per cent on the down-hole equipments. It was stated that assessee was a mineral oil concern. It was engaged in the production of logs. It was, therefore, entitled to 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee-company along with its revised return of income. Referring to the revised accounts, Shri Harihar Lal argued that on the basis of income reflected in the revised accounts, there was no book profit. As such, there was no liability under s. 115J. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee referred some precedents to butress the point that when return is revised, it is incumbent on the AO to consider the revised accounts only filed along with the return. He cannot take into consideration the original accounts for determining the basis for computation of deemed income under s. 115J. According to the learned counsel original return needs to be ignored altogether. 9. Our attention was invited on the auditor's report, wherein it was mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. The provisions in regard to the depreciation in the Company Law were said to be in pari materia with IT Act. In the original return the depreciation was correctly claimed. In the revised return assessee made excessive claim. 14. Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the AO duly considered the revised return. In the revised accounts, the claim of depreciation was not correctly made. He, therefore, corrected the figure. Incidentally the said figure matches with the original return. Therefore, it cannot be said that the AO did consider only the original return and not the revised return. 15. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Sec. 115J was introduced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of ability to pay. It was found that as a result of various tax concessions and incentives certain companies were making huge profits and were also declaring substantial dividends. They were managing their affairs in such a way so as to avoid payment of income-tax. To curb this menace to the company, legislature inserted in the statute the provisions of s. 115J on the pattern of AMT (Alternate Minimum Tax) as introduced in theUnitedStateofAmerica. 20. If the mistake is palpable on the perusal of records, the AO cannot shut his eyes. It is his duty to see that things are done properly in conformity with requirements of law. If a person claims depreciation at higher rate, AO can correct the errors, and book profit is to be taken on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
