Calcutta HC dismisses
assessee’s appeal with costs for AY 2005-06, confirms addition based on the
balance-sheet and P&L account prepared for availing bank loan and certified
by Chartered Accountant in Form 3CB; Observes that the figures in audit report
in Form 3CB (issued in July, 2005) were at variance with actual audited balance
sheet and P&L account for the said period, notes that the difference
between the two was due to the over-valuation of the fixed assets for availing
of the bank loan; Assessee had argued that it is usual practice to draw up
accounts on the basis of estimates for the presentation to a bank at a time
prior to when the assessee is statutorily required to complete the annual
accounts and that addition cannot be made based on such estimated figures in
Form 3CB; Rejecting assessee’s stand, HC quashes the practice of
window-dressing of accounts for making it attractive for bankers and
subsequently removing the gloss and sheen at the time of paying taxes; HC
observes that certificate issued by the CA firm in Form 3CB purported to give
an impression that it was in exercise of an audit as required u/s 44AB (for
which Form 3CD is prescribed), however it was presented in a statutory form
with the fine print of paragraph 2(A) thereunder indicating that it was only an
estimate; HC remarks that “It is scarcely expected of a banker to question the
veracity of any accounts certified by a firm of chartered accountants or to
look into the fine print and comprehend therefrom that utterly bogus figures
had been furnished only for the purpose of availing of the credit facilities
from the bank.”; HC rules that “the balance-sheet and profit and loss accounts
of an assessee accompanied by a certificate as to its fairness, notwithstanding
the caveat as noticed in paragraph 2(A) thereof, cannot be tailor-made to suit
a particular purpose…”; Applies the doctrine of pari delicto to preclude the
assessee from detracting from the figures contained in the balance-sheet and
profit and loss accounts certified on July 18, 2005 at any subsequent stage;
Directs Registrar to forward the copy of this order to ICAI for appropriate
steps to be taken against the CA firm.:HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GST Litigation Update: Key Judicial and Advance Rulings
High Court: Interest Refund Allowed on Subsequent Realisation of Export Proceeds In Ernst and Young LLP v. UOI (2026-VIL-1215-P&H) , t...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
CIT vs. The Instalment Supply Ltd (Delhi High Court) The assessee bought 1614 items of computer systems for Rs.40 lacs from HCL Hewlett ...
-
Key features of File Validation Utility (FVU) version 3.3 FVU 3.3 will be applicable for quarterly TDS/ TCS statements pertaining to...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
Facts The applicant („A‟) is a closely held Public Limited company incorporated in India in the year 1953. A‟s shareholder included A (...
-
Until now, 'Samaritans' is not how the Independent Directors are purported by Clause 49 in the Listing agreement. An Independ...
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether benefits of Sec 80IA(4) are available only to a company and not to persons like HUF, firm and Ind...
No comments:
Post a Comment