What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the total income as per the audited accounts, not the provisional ones. The CIT(A) also allowed set off of brought forward losses as per the IT Act.

The Assessing Officer added a provision for expenses to the assessee's net profit. The assessee, a state public sector undertaking, appealed to the CIT(A) after filing its return based on a provisional P&L account.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without allowing the Assessing Officer to scrutinize it, and whether the total income should be based on audited or provisional accounts.

DCIT vs Maharashtra Small Scale… | ITAT Mumbai 2015

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI R.C. SHARMA.

Hearing: 09.11.2015Pronounced: 20.11.2015

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:

This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, dated 30.09.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 on following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the Additional evidence without allowing the same to be scrutinized by the Assessing Officer as required under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962.

2. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored.”

As name indicates the assessee is State Public Sector under the name Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited. Assessee has filed its return based upon the provisional Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet. While completing the assessment u/s 143(3) the Assessing officer added the provision for expenses amouting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the net profit of Rs.1,86,82,000/-.

(A.Y: 2008-09) DCIT-2(2),VsMaharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited 2.1 The matter was carried before the first appellate authority where his contentions were raised and having considered the same CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee same has been opposed on behalf of revenue in the pretext raised in grounds of appeal. On the other hand, Authorized Representative supported the order of CIT(A).

2.2. We find that the total income before the claim of set off of brought forward losses was shown at Rs.2,88,32,543/-. To that the assessee has claimed set off of brought forward losses and reflected its taxable income at Nil as per the provisional Profit & Loss account the Assessing Officer had determined the total income at Rs.3,86,82,000/- (prior to allowing set off of business loss for Assessment Year 2002-03) in first appeal. Having considered the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer was directed by CIT(A) to adopt the total income (before set off of any brought forward losses) at Rs.2,88,32,543/- as per audited accounts of the assessee, as against the total income of Rs.3,86,82,000/- assessed u/s 143(3) based on provisional Profit & Loss account. The brought forward losses, if any, as per assessment records, were directed to be set off as per the relevant provisions of the IT Act. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) need not interfere from our side same is upheld.

(A.Y: 2008-09) DCIT-2(2),VsMaharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited

As a result, appeal of revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 20th day of November, 2015.

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments