TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263 as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] . The omissions on the part of AO, to carry out certain adjustments, as pointed out by Ld. Pr.CIT would certainly make the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue since Book Profits u/s 115JB has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of that Section. The failure to do so would render the order under consideration amenable to revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 read with Explanation-2 thereof. CIT, in our considered opinion, was clothed with ample supervisory powers to direct for redoing the assessment provided twin conditions as envisaged by Section 263 were fulfilled. Upon perusal of factual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent : Shri K. Madhusudhan-Ld.CIT-DR ORDER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) : - 1. By way of these appeals, the assessee is contesting the validity of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 as exercised by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai (Pr. CIT) vide separate orders, both dated 26/03/2019 for Assessment Years [AY] 2015-16 2016-17. Both the appeals are being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience brevity. First, we take up appeal for AY 2015-16 wherein the grounds raised by the assessee reads as under: - 1. The Id. CIT erred on jurisdiction by invoking revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further the sum of ₹ 25 crore represents provision made for a contractual liability in respect of staff welfare and accordingly, CIT should not have directed the said amount to be added back in computing book profit. Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being banking company was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) at ₹ 7229.71 Crores under normal provisions after certain additions / disallowances vide order dated 30/03/2017. The Book Profits u/s 115JB were computed at ₹ 5584.71 Crores after adding back disallowance u/s 14A and provision for taxes as against book Profits of ₹ 3398.43 Crores reflected by the assessee in its return of income. 2.1 Subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 211(2) of Companies Act, 1956 were applicable. Since the assessee could not be wound up under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, it was not a banking company as per the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and hence, the provisions of Sec. 211(2) would not apply to it. 2.3 However, the said plea was rejected by observing that the provisions of Section 115JB would apply to all companies as defined in Sec 2(17) and the assessee was a company as defined in Sec. 2(17). Further, in terms of amendment, the companies covered under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 211 of the Companies Act, were brought under the purview of Section 115JB. The assessee s submissions were duly considered in the light of notes to clauses t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court rendered in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000 243 ITR 83). Therefore, invoking jurisdiction u/s 263, the assessment order was revised and Ld. AO was directed to computed Book Profits in accordance with the provisions of Section 115JB. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us. 3. We have carefully heard and considered the rival submissions put forth by respective representatives and deliberated on judicial pronouncements as cited before us. 4. Upon perusal of factual matrix, it is undisputed fact that the assessee, in its return of income, has computed income under normal provisions as well as Book Profits u/s 115JB. The Ld. AO made certain adjustments / additions w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y fulfilled and the only recourse available to the revenue was revision u/s 263. Nothing on record would suggest that the stated issues were ever examined or verified by Ld. AO during assessment proceedings and a view was taken in the matter. Therefore, we decline to interfere in the directions given by Ld. Pr.CIT. 5. However, it is made clear that our adjudication as above, shall have no bearing on the issue of applicability of Section 115JB to the assessee, which is kept open since the same do not form subject matter of present appeal. 6. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. ITA No. 3347/Mum/2019 : AY 2016-17 7. The jurisdiction u/s 263 in AY 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
