TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me u/s 143(3) of the Act was determined at Rs. 5,69,15,75,328/-. In the scrutiny assessment, the AO held that the assessee falls within the definition of company as defined u/s 2(17) of the Act and held that provisions of section 115JB are applicable to the assessee. However, the tax payable under normal provisions was more than the tax payable u/s 115JB. Accordingly, income was determined under normal provisions of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and one of the groundS raised by the assessee was that MAT provisions were not applicable to the Bank. The CIT(A) - IV in his order dated 31/03/2009 held that the assessee was assessed in the status of company prior to 1969-70. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 821 ITR 50, held that in the given case, the fact whether 115JB is applicable to banking company or not was a subject matter of appeal on which CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT took different views. However, in accordance with section 154(1)(a) the issue which was the subject matter of appeal cannot be considered u/s 154. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved with the above order, revenue is In appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: " 1. The learned CIT (A) erred on both law and facts of the case. 2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in cancelling the order passed on 12/02/2015 u/s 154 in which demand of Rs. 52,17,63,800/ -, was raised by invoking provisions of Section 115JB, by holding that applicab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact that tax liability under normal provisions is more than book profit and accordingly assessed to tax. Subsequently, aggrieved with the order of the AO and CIT(A), assessee raised ground of appeal before the ITAT, which was not approved by COD and ITAT dismissed the appeal of assessee. Ld. DR submitted that considering the fact that COD has declined at that time when the ground was raised by the assessee, he submitted that assessee cannot invoke the same here. He submitted that the issue is part and parcel of assessment, AO was right invoking section 154 as the mistake was apparent from record. He further submitted that the Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 01/04/2013, in which Explanation 3 was inserted. The above amendment is cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady part of assessment order and accordingly, AO has passed rectification order u/s 154 as the mistake was apparent in the assessment order. 13. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The issue before us is whether AO was right in invoking section 154 in the given case. The facts are, Assessee has raised the applicability of section 115JB in the original assessment passed u/s 143(3), which was the subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A)/ITAT. The coordinate bench of this tribunal in its order dated 06/08/2010 declined to entertain the appeal of the assessee for want of COD approval. It is worth to note that issue of 115JB was not material mainly because it has no impact on the taxable income of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a fact that assessee has never followed Part - II of Schedule - VI to the Companies Act, 1956 and also its financial statements are not placed before Annual General Meetings. Accordingly, provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee. The same view was confirmed by various judicial pronouncements and also in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal. Considering the fact that this issue is debatable, when the rectification order u/s 154 was passed by the AO. However, this issue was put to rest by the amendment in Finance Act, 2012. As per the provisions of section 154, mistake apparent on record can be rectified by the AO provided "where the parties ag....