2024 (9) TMI 1714 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's appeal on recalculated income under Section 115JB dismissed; unabsorbed depreciation claim for 2006-07 rejected.

The ITAT Cochin dismissed the assessee's appeal against the recalculation of income under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as directed by the ... Validity of revision u/s 263 - Assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 as subsequently revised by CIT directing AO to frame the assessment afresh after recalculating the income u/s 115JB HELD THAT:- As the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act has reached to the finality and therefore all the proceedings in consequence to the order of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act cannot be challenged until and unless the proceedings u/s 263 are agitated by the assessee. As such we are of the view that the remedy does not lie for the assessee in the present proceedings. As such we are of the view that the assessee should have preferred an appeal against the findings of the learned CIT u/s 263 where the issue originated. However, it is the option of the assessee to take remedial action by challenging the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act as per the provisions of laws. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. The judgment from the ITAT Cochin involves an appeal by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, related to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessment was initially framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and later revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263, directing a recalculation of income under section 115JB. The CIT found that the assessee incorrectly carried forward and claimed unabsorbed depreciation, which was not available for the year in question.The Assessing Officer (AO) recalculated the book profit as per the CIT's direction. The assessee's appeal against this recalculation was dismissed by the CIT(A), prompting the current appeal. The assessee argued that the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under section 115JB was miscalculated without considering the unabsorbed depreciation. However, the Tribunal noted that the order under section 263 was not contested by the assessee, rendering the subsequent proceedings final and unchallengeable unless the section 263 order itself was appealed. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal and dismissed it.The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 26th September 2024.