2009 (3) TMI 1081 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant wins appeal challenging CIT orders for multiple assessment years, CIT orders quashed, Section 115JB not applicable.

The appellant successfully challenged the CIT's orders under section 263 for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the CIT's order u/s 263.2. Time limit for passing a revisionary order u/s 263.3. Applicability of MAT provisions u/s 115JB.4. Treatment of provisions for NPA and Standard Assets.Summary:1. Legality of the CIT's order u/s 263:The appellant challenged the CIT's order dated 28.03.2011, passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. The CIT had revised the AO's order passed u/s 250, asserting that the original assessment order ceased to exist once the appellate order was passed. The CIT held that the NPA provision had to be added back while computing book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant contended that the CIT's revision was not tenable on both merits and technical grounds, arguing that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue.2. Time limit for passing a revisionary order u/s 263:The Tribunal examined whether the CIT's order dated 28.03.2011 was barred by the time limit prescribed u/s 263(2) of the Act. The original assessment order was passed on 16.03.2005, and the CIT had jurisdiction to invoke his revisionary power till the end of the Financial Year 2007. Since the CIT passed the order u/s 263 on 28.03.2011, it was beyond the time limit allowed by the Act. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order, stating it was without jurisdiction.3. Applicability of MAT provisions u/s 115JB:For AY 2006-07, the CIT directed the AO to modify the order u/s 154 to add back the provision for Standard Assets to the book profits computed under MAT provisions. The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable to them. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Union Bank of India and Kurung Thai Bank PCL, which held that MAT provisions do not apply to certain entities. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable to the appellant, thus rendering the CIT's order u/s 263 invalid.4. Treatment of provisions for NPA and Standard Assets:The CIT held that the AO failed to include the provision for NPA while computing book profits u/s 115JB. The appellant argued that the amount was a write-off, not a provision. The Tribunal found that the CIT's reliance on certain cases was not relevant to the issue at hand. For AY 2006-07, the CIT directed the AO to add back the provision for Standard Assets, which the appellant contended was not a provision made for diminution in the value of assets. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's position, stating that the CIT's order was not in conformity with the law.Conclusion:The appeals filed by the appellant for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07 were allowed. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's orders u/s 263, holding them to be barred by the time limit and not in conformity with the law. The Tribunal also ruled that the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable to the appellant.