TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year (AY) 2017-2018. 2. The only issue arising in the instant appeal is whether the Assessing Officer (AO) has in allowing tax credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act at Rs. 18.17 crore for the current year, acted in accordance with law, or not. This is as, as per the ld.Pr. CIT, tax credit was not liable to be allowed, rendering the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. It would be relevant to recount the background facts of the case, i.e., which have a bearing on the issue at hand. The assessee, beginning AY 2005-2006, claimed deduction u/s. 80-IA as an infrastructure facility for a period of 10 years, i.e., upto AY 2014-2015. Tax was, principally for this reason, determined as payable and paid by i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for being allowed to the assessee for the current year. The AO had not caused any inquiry in the matter and, accordingly, the matter was set aside to his file for de novo consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the material on record. 4.1 The assessee's tax liability, in view of it's claim u/s. 80-IA having been accepted - which obtains up to AY 2014-15, with the matter having attained finality, would upto that year be under MAT provisions, while for the subsequent years under the regular provisions of the Act, even as it shall for these years, i.e., AY 2015-16 onwards, be entitled to tax credit u/s. 115JAA in respect of the tax paid u/s. 115-JB for the earli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19,16,83,377 Not given credit 56,09,97,480 (752680857 - 191683377) Order u/s 143(3) dt. 18.03.2016 11 2014-15 60,42,38,890 38,85,64,786 21,56,74,104 Not given credit 34,53,23,376 (560997480 - 215674104) Order u/s 143(3) dt. 21.12.2016 12 2005-16 64,65,10,272 42,92,87,256 34,44,51,563 19,17,23,756 15,35,99,620 (345323376 - 191723756) Order u/s 143(3) dt. 27.12.2017 13 2016-17 93,41,27,680 56,85,89,074 12,72,28,547 21,47,06,642 0 Order u/s 143(3) dt. 31.12.2018 14 2017-18 79,72,10,248 54,78,47,415 0 18,17,06,355 0 Order u/s 143(3) dt. 30.12.2019 The incongruence, as would be noted, is for AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15, in view of, again admi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year (AY 2017-2018) was at Rs. 2614.84 lakh. Of the same, Rs. 18.17 cr. stands allowed to the assessee in its assessment, leaving a balance unutilized credit at Rs. 7.98 crore. How, we wonder, is the AO's order erroneous, much less also prejudicial, to the interest of the Revenue? All the facts and figures, duly tabulated from the record by the Pr. CIT in his order, are undisputed. The AO has only allowed the tax credit as available on record. The AO cannot presume utilization of tax credit for these two earlier years, i.e., where the same has not been actually allowed, and proceed on that basis. That is, he could not take cognizance of sums that had not crystallized upon passing of the requisite orders. That would be, plainly, presumptuous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13-14 & 2014-15, the said two years as the earlier years, would yield refund to the assessee. This explains the non-giving of appeal-effect for these years by the Revenue. The ld. Pr. CIT has, per the impugned order, capitalized on the 'error' in not allowing appeal-effect to project an assessment, otherwise in order, as not so. A timely appeal-effect would have, on the contrary, led to the assesses being entitled to refund of the entire amount of Rs. 40.74 cr., being the excess of tax under the regular provisions, over that under the MAT regime, collected by it. That is, no tax credit would arise for those years. Put differently, the assessee, on account of the appeal effect being not given by the Revenue, has been saddled with additional ....