TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is different from the profit and loss account approved at the Annual General Meeting is permissible?" (2) That the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of interest of Rs. 9,64,179/- payable on disputed excise duty?" 2. The Assessment Year in question is 1989-90, the relevant accounting period being previous year ended on 31.3.1989. The respondent assessee, a Limited Company, declared total income of Rs.1,31,118/- as computed under section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as per return of income filed on 28.12.1989. This return came to be revised for the first time on 22.3.1990. Subsequently, a second revised return was filed on 28.12.1990 and the second revision was necessitated by three r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Annual General Meeting, showing the profit at Rs.4,64,91,985/- would alone be considered". 4. The assessee carried the matter in Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) but did not succeed. In Second Appeal filed before the Tribunal, the assessee succeeded for the reasons recorded in impugned oder dated 6.1.1999. 5. The learned Counsel for Appellant-Revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified in discarding the accounts filed with revised return of income as the same were not in consonance with the requirements of the Companies Act, the same having not been presented before the Annual General Meeting of the Company. It was submitted that unless and until the recast accounts are authenticated by Chartered Accountan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expressed by the Tribunal. That the issue raised by the second question therefore stood concluded by the aforesaid judgment. 7. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent-assessee in the first instance pointed out an unreported oral order dated 14.3.2007 in case of CIT Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. rendered in Income Tax Reference No. 67 of 1999 to submit that identical issue was involved in the said matter vide question No.3 therein and the Court had upheld similar opinion expressed by the Tribunal. Secondly, reliance was placed on Bombay High Court decision in case of Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT, (2003) 262 ITR 330, to submit that applying the ratio of the Apex Court decision in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) Bombay High Court had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the profit and loss account, for the relevant previous year has to be prepared in accordance with Parts II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act and accounts so prepared have to be certified by the Chartered Accountants. In the facts of the present case, it is not found by any authority that the revised accounts submitted with revised return of income filed on 28.12.1990 were not audited. In fact, the positive averment made by the assessee before Commissioner (Appeals) remains unrefuted. 9. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer had no powers or jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act to take a different view of the matter and had no option but to proceed to determine the taxable profits under section 115J of the Act as ....