2021 (11) TMI 635 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Tribunal, Favors Assessee over Revenue in Tax Matter

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Versus Kerala Chemicals & Proteins Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Versus Kerala Chemicals & Proteins Ltd. - [2021] 438 ITR 333 (Ker) Issues Involved1. Computation of book profit under Section 115JB and deduction under Section 80HHC.2. Consideration of clause (c) of Explanation to Section 115JA by the Assessing Officer in previous assessment years.3. Directions to the Assessing Officer regarding reduction of net profit by the provision written back.Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JB and Deduction under Section 80HHCThe Tribunal held that while computing the book profit under Section 115JB, the deduction under Section 80HHC should be computed as per the MAT provisions and not as per the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was in alignment with the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v Commissioner of Income-Tax [2010] 327 ITR 305 (SC). Consequently, this question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.Issue 2: Consideration of Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 115JA by the Assessing OfficerThe Tribunal presumed that the Assessing Officer had considered clause (c) of Explanation to Section 115JA in the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The Tribunal reasoned that merely because proper working was not available on record, it could not be concluded that the Assessing Officer had not considered the same. This approach was challenged by the revenue as being perverse, arbitrary, and illegal. However, the Tribunal's presumption was based on the statutory obligation of the Assessing Officer to consider the said provisions.Issue 3: Directions to the Assessing Officer Regarding Reduction of Net Profit by the Provision Written BackThe Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the net profit by the sum of Rs. 3,29,27,056/- instead of Rs. 1,42,02,335/-. This direction was based on the Tribunal's finding that the provisions of Section 115JB were applicable, and the Assessing Officer was under a statutory obligation to consider the same. The Tribunal noted that the provision for excise duty was made during the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000, and was subsequently written back when the assessee succeeded in its appeal before the CESTAT. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the claim was unjustified.ConclusionThe High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's omission to refer to special provisions under Section 115JA/115JB should not deny the writing back provision available under the second proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 115JB. The Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion was valid and correct, and the appeal by the revenue was dismissed. The Court also noted that the primary and first appellate authorities had presumed circumstances against the assessee without sufficient material on record. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.