AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the Act. The book profit under section 115JB, however, was not computed by the Assessing Officer in the said assessment order in order to ascertain the minimum alternate tax payable by the assessee. The issue relating to treatment of profit/gain earned by the assessee-company on sale of ships/vessels also was not considered by the Assessing Officer. After having noticed these errors in the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3), which were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the ld. CIT exercised his powers under section 263 and set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after taking into consideration both the errors pointed out by him. Accordingly, a fresh assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act vide an order dated 08.12.2011, wherein he computed the book profit of the assessee under section 115JB at Rs. 14,240.98 lakhs and since the MAT credit payable thereon at Rs. 1,424.098 lakhs calculated at 10% of the book profit was more than the tax of Rs. 333.57 lakhs payable under the n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had already been completed for the following assessment year i.e AY 08.-09, 09-10, 10-11 determining tax payable under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee had already paid tax in excess of the amount which it would have been liable to pay, had the MAT Credit of AY 2007-08 was set off against the normal tax payable. Accordingly, even if the amount of MAT tax payable pursuant to the order dated 8.12.2011 was paid for the Assessment year 2007-08, the assessee would have been entitled to a refund for the following assessment years. Thus, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, envisaging the adjustment of such MAT Credit against the normal tax paid for the AY 08-09, 09-10 and 2010-11 cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The orders referred to in Notice u/s 263 are the final subsisting orders for the relevant Assessment Years subsequent to appeal effect/rectification/scrutiny assessment etc. in fact, order 263/143(3) for the Assessment year 2007-08 pursuant to the direction U/S 263 was passed on 08.12.2011 and for all the following Assessment Years immediately thereafter. The order for the AY 2007-08 passed u/s 263/143(3) dated 8.12.2011, determin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of credit of MAT tax paid for AY 2007-08. The other view as is adopted by the assessing officer is to adjust the tax payable u/s 115JB for the AY 2007-08 and the tax refundable for the AY's 08-09, 09-10, 10-11 after taking effect of credit available to the assessee in such subsequent AY's u/s 15JAA. Thus, where there exists two possible views to a given situation, then revisionary assessment proceedings u/s 263 cannot be invoked, and the proceedings u/s 263 may please be dropped". 5. The ld. CIT did not find merit in the above submission made by the assessee. According to him, the assessee having admittedly not paid MAT credit under section 115JB for the assessment year 2007-08, it was not entitled to any credit for the same and there was an error in the order of the Assessing Officer passed for A.Y. 2007-08 vide its order dated 29.11.2012 passed under section 143(3) read with sections 263 and 251 of the Act to allow the same and also to carry forward the same for the subsequent years. He also held that this error had cascading effect for A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, wherein the MAT credit wrongly allowed to be carried forward in A.Y. 2007-08 was actually adjus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 143(3) read with section 263 on 08.12.2011. He contended that the impugned order under section 263 for A.Y. 2007-08 thus has been passed by the ld. CIT after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year, in which the order sought to be revised was passed and the same is clearly barred by limitation as provided in sub-section (2) of section 263. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly supported the impugned order of the ld. CIT passed under section 263 for A.Y. 2007-08. He submitted that the ld. CIT vide his order has actually revised the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with sections 263 and 251 of the Act on 29.11.2012 and since the said order under section 263 is made before the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed, it is not barred by limitation. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the ld. CIT by his impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act for A.Y. 2007-08 has revised the assessment made in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 on the issue of allowin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter of the re-assessment proceedings, the learned Commissioner purported to invoke his revisional jurisdiction in terms of S.263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29th March, 2004 to check and assess the lease rental from lease equalization fund, if any, and to bring to tax the same. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing elaborately the legal position on the issue of scope of re-assessment proceedings and the doctrine of merger, held that the learned CIT having exercised his revisional jurisdiction to reopen the order of assessment only in relation to Lease Equalization Fund, which was not the subject matter of re-assessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for in Sub-section (2) of S.263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of order of original assessment and not from the date of order of re-assessment. Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT under S.263 was held to be invalid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having been passed beyond the period of limitation as provided in sub-section (2) of S.263 of the Act. To the similar effect is the decision of the Hon'ble Bomb....