Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Video Conferencing)

ITA No. 102/Del/2018
 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

ACIT,
Circle-17(2),
New Delhi
PAN: AAACR6117Q
(Appellant) 

Vs.

 National Projects constructions
Corporation Ltd,
30-31, Raja House, Nehru
Place, New Delhi
(Respondent)

Revenue by : Shri Pramita M. Bishwas, CIT DR
Assessee by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv

Date of Hearing 05/04/2021
Date of pronouncement 21/06/2021

O R D E R

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue/ ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi against the order of the ld CIT(A)-6, Delhi dated 13.10.2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 2,72,49,141/- on account of bad - debts written-off even when the assessee had failed to prove that amount was actually trading liability and (In- corresponding amount was actually offered as income in earlier years and without considering'' the provisions of Section 36(l)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Act?

2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in /deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,49.141/- u/s 36(1) (vii) of the Act by ignoring the procedure prescribed by Hon’ble Apex Court for write off an amount as irrecoverable in the case of I K! Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 190 Taxman 391 (SC)?

3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 113,50,15,591/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 37 (1) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee could not discharge its initial onus under section 37 (I) of die Act by not justifying that expenses incurred on ‘land acquisition’ was of revenue nature?
 
4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 12,20,71,176/- on account of "provision written back’ during the year even when the assessee had failed tofurnish calculation of excess provision written back in previous years during assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings?

5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowances made in books profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by accepting and admitting additional evidence adduced by the assessee during appellate proceedings even alter, specific denial of the Assessing Officer in his remand report?”

3. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of civil construction of dams, bridges, tunnels, power houses, flyovers, buildings, canals and other infrastructure projects. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring income of Rs. Nil . It was further revised on 22.03.2013 at an income of Rs. Nil. The case was picked up for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made at an income of Rs. Nil as per normal provision of the Income Tax computation and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs. 74,59,83,101/-.

4. The ld AO made the addition to the normal income:-
a. Disallowance of bad debts written off of Rs. 2,72,49,141/-
b. PMC expenditure of Rs. 113,50,15,591/- was treated as capital expenditure
c. Disallowances of Rs. 12,20,71,176/- by the provisions of expenditure.

5. In computation of book profit he made an adjustment of Rs. 5,34,20,831/- on account of provisions. He further made an addition of Rs. 37,16,24,554/- on account of disallowance of the claim of the assessee of brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less. Accordingly, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 27.03.2014.

6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and therefore, on disallowance deleted and relief granted to the assessee, the ld AO is in appeal before us.

7. We have heard the rival parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and after careful consideration, adjudicate the grounds of appeal hereinafter. 

To know more in details find the attachment file