Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow V. M/s U.P Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 210/LKW/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the book profit and compute MAT according to Section 115JB of the IT Act. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) did not consider CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2001 while making the decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s direction did not prevent the Assessing Officer from considering the CBDT Circular while implementing the order. Both parties presented their arguments, with the Revenue supporting the original assessment and the assessee advocating for the CIT(A)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113244 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEELA CHOPRA
• Section: 115JB; 13

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.210/Lkw/2019 Assessment year:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.210/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy.C.I.T., Range-6, Lucknow. Vs. M/s U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., 12 th Floor, Vikas Deep Building, Station Road, Lucknow. PAN:AAACU4797P (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) Appeal vide I.T.A. No.210/Lkw/2019 has been filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2013-14 against impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [learned “CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in directing the Assessing Officer to calculate the book profit as per the Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section-115JB and accordingly compute MAT on such book profit as per Section-115JB of the IT Act while the learned CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2001 dated 09/11/2001.” (B) In this case assessment order dated 03/02/2016 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) wherein the Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (D.R.) Date of hearing 23/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 23/05/2023 I.T.A. No.210/Lkw/2019 Assessment year:2013-14 2 assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.17,51,94,278/- and book profit was determined at Rs.63,66,58,568/- in the status of company. The Assessing Officer also invoked section 115JB of the IT Act for charging MAT. The assessee filed application for rectification of the aforesaid assessment order claiming that Section 115JB of the IT Act was not applicable on assessee company for charging of MAT. Vide order dated 28/04/2016, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s application for rectification. The assessee filed appeal in the office of ld CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2019, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the book profit of the assessee as per Explanation 1 to sub- section (2) of Section-115JB and to accordingly compute MAT on such book profit as per section 115JB of the IT Act. The present appeal before us has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2019 of learned CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, Revenue was represented by Smt. Sheela Chopra, learned CIT (D.R.); and the assessee was represented by Shri P. K. Kapoor, Chartered Accountant, learned A.R. for assessee. (B.1) Learned CIT (D.R.) for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. (B.2) Learned A.R. for the assessee relied on the impugned order of learned CIT(A) and strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). He submitted the direction given by learned CIT(A) was in accordance with law and no interference with the order of learned CIT(A) was warranted in the present facts and circumstances. (C) We have heard both sides and have also perused the materials on record. We find that learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to calculate book profit as per Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section- I.T.A. No.210/Lkw/2019 Assessment year:2013-14 3 115JB and to compute MAT on such book profit as per Section 115JB of the IT Act. Neither side has brought any materials before us for our consideration to persuade us to interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2019 of learned CIT(A). Even if the learned CIT(A) did not take into consideration of CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2001, dated 09/11/2001; as alleged in the grounds of appeal, it was open to the Assessing Officer to take this CBDT Circular into consideration while giving effect to the impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2019 of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has not given any direction to the Assessing Officer to not take the aforesaid CBDT Circular into consideration. We are of the view that the direction given by learned CIT(A) is in accordance with law; and we find no merit in the present appeal filed by the Revenue. We agree with the submissions of learned A.R. for the assessee that no interference in the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the appeal before us. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. (D) In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed (Order pronounced in the open court on 23/05/2023) Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 23/05/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar