TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against brought forward losses. We find such observation of the Tribunal with regard to the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer, is consistent with the ratio of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court ), Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2008 (4) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT ] and also this court's decision in Amines and Plasticizers Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Assessment) reported in [2006 (11) TMI 112 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT ] - Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2016 - Ajit Singh (CJ) And Hrishikesh Roy, J. For the Petitioner : S. Sarma For the Respondent : R. Goenka, Uttam Borthakur, A. Goenka JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department. Also heard Mr. R. Goenka, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (assessee). 2. This is an appeal filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act ) whereby the Commissioner of Income-tax in short the Commissioner of Income-tax, challenges the order dated February 9, 2012 (Annexure C) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in the I. T. A. No. 79/Gau/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Companies Act, 1956. However the appellate authority considered that the figure of net profit was taken into consideration from the return filed by the assessee themselves. It was further held that the Assessing Officer had not tampered with the figures for calculating the book profit. Thus it was declared that the Assessing Officer committed no error in rejecting the revised return of income because it was filed after expiry of the statutory time limit and accordingly the assessment for payment of minimum alternate tax under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, was upheld through the order dated February 9, 2010 (annexure B), by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, where they contended that the Departmental authorities are not entitled to tinker with the audited accounts submitted by the assessee which is prepared in accordance with the Schedule-VI to the Companies Act, 1956. On the other hand, the Departmental representative contended that the computation of minimum alternate tax by the Assessing Officer was upon due con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. Section 115JB was introduced in the Income-tax Act with a deeming provision which makes a company liable to pay tax on its book profit as reflected in their own audited accounts and the authenticity of the account which are prepared in the manner provided by the Companies Act are to be accepted by the Assessing Officer. When the accounts produced by an assessee are found to be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to embark upon a fresh inquiry in regard to the entries made in the books of account of the company. In other words, computing the income under section 115J, the Assessing Officer has limited power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities, as having been properly maintained in accordance with the requirement of the Companies Act. When such books of account are produced, the Assessing Officer has limited power of making appropriate correction in accordance with the Explanation to section 115JB. To put it differently the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit reflected in the profit and loss account except to the limited extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation to prepare his profit and loss account as per Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the 1956 Act. No dispute has been raised at any stage of the proceedings by the Revenue that the profit and loss account of the assessee is not in compliance with the provisions of the 1956 Act, particularly Sch. VI, Parts II and III. In Sch. VI, there is no reference to sections 205 and 350 or Sch. XIV to the 1956 Act. 15. Following the ratio enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above case, our High Court in Amines and Plasticizers Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Assessment) reported in [2008] 296 ITR 727 (Gauhati) held as follows (page 732) : The decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) on the other hand shows that the Assessing Officer cannot scrutinize the profit and loss accounts of the assessee company certified by the statutory auditors. The question raised and answered in that case in our considered view is of no help in the given context of the case at hand. The directors have formed an opinion as to what is reasonably necessary for meeting the known liability against debts due. The profit and loss accounts have been prepared as per relevant provision of the Companies Act, 1956 and the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 115JB of the Income-tax Act, by ignoring the profit and loss account was not through due process. When the corrected return in consonance with the audited profit and loss account was submitted, those figures should have been the basis for determination of the minimum alternate tax under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 19. In the proceeding under consideration, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the end result as computed by the Assessing Officer was of his own making and the assessee could not be held liable to tax for non-disclosure of the income which the assessee had returned but adjusted against brought forward losses. We find such observation of the Tribunal with regard to the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer, is consistent with the ratio of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra); Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2008] 300 ITR 251 (SC) and also this court's decision in Amines and Plasticizers Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Assessment) reported in [2008] 296 ITR 727 (Gauhati). Therefore, we declare that no substantial question of law in this case is required to be decided as the issue is authoritatively decided by judicial pronouncements. Consequently this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
