2016 (6) TMI 1381 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee due to flawed assessment reopening, section 115JB inapplicable to banking companies.

IDBI Bank Ltd. Versus Asst. CIT, Mumbai

The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding the reopening of assessment legally flawed as there was no failure to disclose material facts. It ... Disallowance u/s. 14A while computing book profit u/s.115JB - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee is a banking company the provisions of section 115JB was not applicable to a banking company, hence no income is assessable u/s.115JB. The said section has been extended to other assessee’s like banks, insurance companies, etc. also as per the amendment made by Finance Act, 2012. In the following cases, it has been held that “Section 115JB is not applicable to Banks and other companies whose accounts are not made as per section 211 of the Companies Act”. In view of the above, we do not find any merit for the addition made u/s.115JB of the Act. Interest levied u/s. 234D - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the reassessment u/s. 147, interest u/s. 234D is applicable only when refund is granted to the assessee u/s 143(1) and no refund is due on regular assessment or refund granted exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment. Since the original assessment was completed u/s.143(3), the provisions of section 234D is not applicable to the instant assessee. Issues Involved:1. Reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance made under section 14A while computing book profit under section 115JB.3. Interest levied under section 234D of the Act.Analysis:Reopening of Assessment (Section 147):The appeal was filed against the order by the ld. CIT(A)-24, Mumbai for the assessment year 2004-05, challenging the reopening of assessment and the disallowance made under section 14A. The tribunal noted that the assessment can be reopened under section 147 after four years from the end of the assessment year if there was a failure to disclose all material facts. However, it was observed that the Assessing Officer did not specify any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, rendering the reopening legally flawed. The tribunal also highlighted a similar ruling in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2005-06, where the reopening was deemed unlawful due to the absence of failure to disclose material facts.Disallowance under Section 115JB:Regarding the disallowance made under section 14A while computing book profit under section 115JB, it was contended that as the assessee was a banking company, section 115JB was not applicable to banking companies. The tribunal cited precedents where it was established that section 115JB does not apply to banks and companies whose accounts are not prepared as per section 211 of the Companies Act. Consequently, the tribunal found no merit in the addition made under section 115JB.Interest under Section 234D:Concerning the levy of interest under section 234D, it was argued that this interest is applicable only when a refund is granted to the assessee under section 143(1) and no refund is due on regular assessment, or the refund granted exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment. Since the original assessment was completed under section 143(3), the tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 234D were not applicable to the assessee. As a result, the assessee's appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the legal flaws in the reopening of assessment, the inapplicability of section 115JB to banking companies, and the non-applicability of interest under section 234D due to the nature of the original assessment.