2020 (4) TMI 400 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns CIT(A) order on delays, rectifications, MAT levy, deductions, and interest charges.

Global Transgenes Ltd. Versus ITO 1 (1) (4), Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeals challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the delay in filing appeals, rectification under section ... Condonation of delay - delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) - delay of 2 & ½ years to 3 & ½ years - Rectification u/s 154 - assessee has not offered to tax based on provision of Sec. 115JB, even though assessee has taxable book Profit - HELD THAT:- Since it was in bonafide belief that assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IB against the book profit and filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2010-11 and believed that it will get favourable decision. However, the issue was debatable and assessee was in bonafide belief that the rectification u/s 154 of the Act cannot be made. However, AO has passed the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act without following the submission of assessee. Assessee was in bonafide belief that Ld. CIT(A) will pass favourable order and with improper guidance from its counsels, failed to file the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) for all those AYs on time. Considering the overall situations and assessee has a debatable issue on merits and for the sake of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal for all those assessment years and decide the issue on merits on issue of Sec 115JB as well as chargeability of interest u/s 234B and 234C. Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee for this assessment year is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for multiple assessment years - Delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) - Rectification order u/s 154 for AYs 2007-08 to 2009-10 & 2011-12 - Dispute over deduction u/s 80IB and levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB - Charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C under MAT provisions.Analysis:1. The appellant filed four appeals against the order of Ld. CIT(A) for different assessment years. The issues raised were identical, so the appeals were clubbed together. The primary focus was on ITA No. 7170Mum/2018 for AY 2007-08. The assessment for this year was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, with discrepancies noted in the treatment of deductions under section 80IB and the calculation of book profit under section 115JB.2. Following the assessment for AY 2010-11, the Assessing Officer (AO) rectified the orders for AYs 2007-08 to 2009-10 & 2011-12 under section 154. The appellant, awaiting the outcome of an appeal for AY 2010-11, failed to file a timely appeal against the rectification order. The appellant contended that the rectification was on a debatable issue regarding the interaction of sections 80IB and 115JB, and the levy of MAT on deductions under section 80IB.3. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant included challenges to the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the application of section 154 on debatable issues, the levy of MAT under section 115JB, the reduction of deductions under section 80-IB from net profit, and the charge of interest under sections 234B and 234C under MAT provisions.4. The appellant argued that improper advice and reliance on the outcome of the AY 2010-11 appeal led to the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant cited precedents supporting the deduction of section 80IB from book profit under section 115JB and contested the charging of interest under MAT provisions.5. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the rectification order was passed without due consideration of the appellant's contentions and remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Tribunal acknowledged the debatable nature of the issue and the appellant's bonafide belief in the correctness of its position.6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the appellant for the assessment year in question and extended the decision to the other appeals for statistical purposes. The appeals were allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits of the issues raised.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by the appellant, and the Tribunal's decision in remitting the matter back for further consideration.