M/S. ASIAN PETROPRODUCTS & EXPORTS LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1076/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the AO's rectification order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance of the assessee, despite notices being issued.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the addition of income tax expense and disallowance of brought forward losses, and whether the rectification order was legally correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara in Appeal No. CAB- 1/368/2015-16 vide order dated 04/01/2017 passed for the assessment year 2011-12.

Page No. 2 M/s. Asian Petroproducts & Exports Ltd. vs. ACIT

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts dismissed the appeal and thereby not adjudicated the ground of appeal relating to addition of Income Tax expense amounting to Rs 1,81,708/- to the book of profit computed under section 115JB of the IT Act without considering the fact that the appellant itself has added the said expense to the Net Profit while computing total income for the year under consideration.

2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on dismissed the appeal and thereby not adjudicating the ground of appeal relating to disallowance of claim of brought forward losses of Rs 32,32,361/- without considering the fact of the case in right spirit.

3.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify above ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 29.03.2011 declaring total income of � Nil after setting of business loss of earlier years. The assessment under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act was completed on 29.03.2014. While finalising the assessment, the AO made certain disallowance. The assessee filed an appeal against the same which was on most part allowed in favour of the assessee by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 01.06.2015. Meanwhile, on perusal of assessment order, it was revealed that there were two apparent mistakes in the assessment order passed by the AO on 24.03.2015. In view of the same, after affording opportunities of being heard, order under section 154 of the Act was passed on 18.11.2015, against which the assessee filed appeal Page No. 3 M/s. Asian Petroproducts & Exports Ltd. vs. ACIT before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, several notices dated 29.09.2016, 23.11.2016 and 26.12.2016 were issued to the assessee. Since the assessee did not appear before CIT(A), he decided the appeal against the assessee and upheld the order of the assessing officer. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:

“4.2. I have considered the facts of the case and the AO's observations. As stated by the AO in his order, sufficient opportunities of being heard were provided to the appellant in the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. But, the appellant failed to submit any response to the notices issued by the AO. In the current appellate proceedings also, no compliance has been made. The nature of rectification carried out by the AO is also legally correct. Income Tax expenditure is required to be added, while computing book profit u/s 1153B. Similarly, the depreciation allowance has also been allowed as per records. Hence, the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act is upheld.”

4.

Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that on merits it is the strong case in favour of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition under section 115JB of the Act on account of income tax expenses, while ignoring the fact that the assessee has itself added the said expense to the net profit while computing total income for the year under consideration. Further, the assessee also has a strong case on merits in respect to the claim of brought forward loss of � 32,32,361/-.

5.

We have heard the case of the counsel for the assessee. In our considered view, in light of the above submissions, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Page No. 4 M/s. Asian Petroproducts & Exports Ltd. vs. ACIT for de novo adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to cooperate during the course of appellate proceedings.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17-05-2022 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 17/05/2022 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →