JOHN DEERE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24-08-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2011-12 wherein he confirmed the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act.

The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. We note that an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 154C(3) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer on 27-05-2015 determining the total income of assessee at Rs.4,69,05,84,565/-. The Assessing Officer initiated 154 proceedings on the ground that excess MAT credit has been given to the assessee u/s. 115JAA of the Act. The contention of ld. AR, Shri Nikhil Pathak was that the assessee claimed MAT credit of Rs.26,89,82,336/- which is reduced to Rs.2,24,44,846/-. Further, he submitted that the assessee got favourable orders from the Tribunal and as well as CIT(A) wherein the MAT credit is much higher than the credit given by the AO and prayed to remand the matter to the file of AO with a direction to AO to compute the MAT credit of earlier years given by ITAT and CIT(A).

The ld. DR, Shri Deepak Garg vehemently opposed the submissions of ld. AR. He submits that there is no mistake in the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act and the assessee can file an application before the AO for any effect thereto and argued no directions are required from this Tribunal.

The minimum alternate tax is paid when it is higher than the tax computed in accordance with normal provisions of the Act and the assessee is entitled to claim the said difference between MAT provisions and normal provisions as set off in the subsequent assessment years where it pays tax in pursuance of normal provisions. In the present case, the CIT(A) observed that the AO mentioned that there is no MAT credit for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08 and further, he opined that the assessee could not demonstrate what is the actual MAT credit available for the aforesaid two assessment years. We note that the assessee even before CIT(A) pleaded that there may be direction to the AO to give appeal effect to order of Tribunal and CIT(A). Admittedly, this was not considered by the CIT(A) and there was no reference in the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act regarding availability of MAT credit for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Therefore, in our opinion unless the appeal effect is given, then only whether the MAT credit is available or not will be known, if the AO finds MAT credit on such examination, which can be carried forward to give credit in the year under consideration. Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the arguments of ld. AR and taking into consideration the discussion made above we remand the matter to the file of AO for its fresh consideration with the direction to compute the MAT credit available to the assessee in earlier years by giving effect to the orders of ITAT and CIT(A). Thus, the only ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.