2014 (12) TMI 476 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Upheld Commissioner's Order on Tax Liability Interpretation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Versus M/s. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, finding no substantial question of law. It upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing compliance with specific legal ... Computation of tax liability u/s 115JB – Tribunal relied upon the Explanation as it stood at the time of the relevant AY - Held that:- The Tribunal was rightly of the view that the assessee made a computation and for the purposes of section 115JB relying on the explanation 1 as it stood then - The facts being undisputed, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner did not commit any error apparent on the face of the record nor his order can be termed as perverse - The only ground on which the AO refused to accept the claim or deduction was that the Assessee had not lodged it in its normal computation - So long as the definition of the term book profit and found in explanation 1 permitted the Assessee to lodge that claim, it is not necessary for him to have shown it in the normal computation - In the original return of income and the normal computation, this was not shown but in the revised return this was the claim lodged and referred by relying upon the explanation - It was also claimed on the basis that amount is credited to the Profit and Loss Account - relying on the explanation 1 as it stood then that the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner – the order of the Tribunal is upheld as the view taken in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the Assessee cannot be termed as perverse or proceeding on a complete misreading or misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision – as such no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against revenue. Issues:Challenge to order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 6th June, 2012 regarding computation of tax liability under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06.Analysis:The case involved the Assessee filing a return of income on 31st October, 2005, declaring total income as Nil, but later revising it on 31st March, 2007. The Assessee adjusted brought forward unabsorbed business loss set off and claimed unabsorbed depreciation and business loss to be carried forward. The tax liability was computed under section 115JB of the Act. The Commissioner held that the Act does not require the income to form part of the computation but must be credited to the Profit and Loss Account for reducing the amount from book profit under section 115JB. The Commissioner's order in favor of the Assessee was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal.The Tribunal found that the Assessee made a computation for the purposes of section 115JB based on explanation 1 as it stood then. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner did not commit any error apparent on the face of the record, and the Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the deduction was solely based on the claim not being lodged in the normal computation. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner, stating that as long as the definition of book profit permitted the Assessee to lodge the claim, it was not necessary to show it in the normal computation. The view taken by the Tribunal was based on the facts peculiar to the Assessee and was not deemed as perverse or a misinterpretation of the statutory provision.Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, concluding that it did not raise any substantial question of law. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the specific requirements of the law and the interpretation of statutory provisions in determining tax liabilities under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment year.