Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM
The appeal of the assessee in for the Assessment Year (in short the Asst Year) 2004-05 arise out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 17, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No. 273/CIT(A)- 17/Kol/15-16 dated 12.6.2017 passed against the rectification order passed by the 2 M/s United Bank of India A.Yrs. 2004-05&2006-07 Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -6, Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section [ in short u/s] 154/254/254/251/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The appeals of the revenue in & 1971/Kol/2017 arise out of the separate orders passed by the ld CITA in Appeal Nos. 09 & 07/CIT(A)-23/DCIT, Cir.- 6/16-17/Kol dated 28.6.2017 for the Asst Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 respectively passed against the separate orders of assessments framed by the ld AO u/s 254/254/251/143(3) of the Act dated 28.2.2013 for the Asst Year 2004-05 and u/s 254/154/143(3) of the Act dated 28.2.2013 for the Asst Year 2006-07. All these appeals are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.
Revenue Appeal – Asst Year 2004-05
The only issue to be adjudicated in this appeal is as to whether the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are applicable to the assessee being a banking company for the Asst Year 2004-05.
3.1. The Learned Counsel for the assessee had filed adjournment petition before us. Since this is a covered case in favour of the assessee, the adjournment petition was rejected by the bench. We find that this issue is covered by the co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2009-10 in wherein the reliance was placed on another decision of this tribunal in the case of UCO Bank vs DCIT in ITA No. 1768/Kol/2009 dated 27.11.2015 for the Asst Year 2002-03. It was held that the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not 2
3 M/s United Bank of India A.Yrs. 2004-05&2006-07 applicable to the banking companies upto the Asst Year 2012-13. There has been amendment in section 115JB of the Act with effect from Asst Year 2013-14 which has to be examined independently in the light of the amended provisions with regard to the applicability of book profit tax on the banking companies. We find that the ld CITA had placed reliance on the aforesaid decisions of this tribunal and granted relief to the assessee, against which the revenue cannot have any grievance. Hence respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue.
The aforesaid decision would apply with equal force for the revenue appeal in for the Asst Year 2006-07 also. Kol/2017– Assessee Appeal – Asst Year 2004-05
We find that the ld CITA had observed in his order that the ld AO had merely adopted the book profits computed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2006. The subject matter of rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act was only with regard to incorrect calculation of interest u/s 244A of the Act, against which the assessee was aggrieved and an appeal was preferred before the ld CITA. In view of these facts, the ld CITA observed that the issue of applicability of MAT provisions u/s 115JB of the Act does not arise from the impugned rectification order and hence it cannot be a ground of appeal against the said rectification order. Accordingly the ld CITA dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. But we find that the ld CITA had rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and we hold that the said order does not call for any interference. Hence the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed in for Asst Year 2004-05.
4 M/s United Bank of India A.Yrs. 2004-05&2006-07 6. In the result, the appeals of the revenue for Asst Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 are dismissed and appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2004-05 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 10.08.2018