XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting minimum alternate tax (‘MAT’) credit amounting Rs.2,25,63,707 while computing tax liability of the Appellant. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in 2.1. law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting MAT credit for AY 2009-10 ignoring that the Hon’ble ITAT vide its order dated 02 December 2015 had remanded back the matter to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer/ Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. 2.2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting MAT credit for AY 2010-11 without appreciating that the matter is still under dispute and appeal for AY 2010-11 has already been heard by the Hon’ble ITAT and order is awaited as on date. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B 3. and 234C of the Act. The same has been unjustly and illegally charged. That, without prejudice, the interest under section 234B and 234C 4. is also wrongly worked out.”

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Salil Kapoor submitted that Assessing Officer has initially allowed MAT credit pertaining to Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11 in his assessment order for the A.Y.2012-13 which was completed on 31.10.2016. Later on, in rectification proceedings u/s.154, he has withdrawn the MAT credit after observing and holding as under: “The assessee filed return reply on 21-03-2018 stating that the assessee had claimed credit of Rs. 2,66,71,252/- u/s 115JAA of the Act for taxes paid u/s 115JB of the Act prior to AY 2012-13. Year-wise detail of credit utilized during AY 2012-13 is tabulated below for reference:-

Learned Senior Department Representative admitted that the matter can be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to calculate the computation of the tax liability under the MAT and after giving effect of the appellate orders.

After considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the material referred to before us, we find that Assessing Officer in the impugned rectification proceedings u/s.154 has withdrawn the MAT credit for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 while computing the tax liability for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer has not allowed the MAT credit on the ground that addition were made in the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and taxes have been paid by the assessee under the normal provision. As pointed out by the learned counsel, it is seen that the appellate order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2009-10 have been passed way back on 2nd December, 2015, wherein barring the issue of disallowance of interest on FDRs, all the other additions were restored back to the file of the AO/TPO; and till date no assessment has been passed giving effect to such order. Thus, Assessing Officer is directed to verify this fact, whether the order has been passed in pursuance of remand by the Tribunal or not; and in case assessment has become time barred as per law, then Assessing Officer should examine the working given by the assessee and allow consequential relief in the MAT credit.

Similarly, for the Assessment Year 2010-11, the TPO/A.O is directed to first give effect to the ITAT order and then he should calculate the MAT credit and grant consequential relief to the assessee.

Appeal of the assessee is thus treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Since assessee has filed stay application, seeking stay of demand arising out of withdrawal of MAT credit in aforesaid manner, therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed that until he carries out our aforesaid direction, no demand shall be enforced and till the granting of consequential relief the entire demand as disputed in the stay application shall remain stayed.