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)
Mauritian Cabinet approves ratification of Protocol to India-Mauritius DTAA introducing Principal Purpose Test condition
The India-Mauritius DTAA, which entered into force on 1 April 1983, was amended by way of Protocol signed on 10 May 2016 [1] (2016 Protoc...
-
ITC is blocked on motor vehicles having seating capacity ≤ 13 persons (including the driver) used for the transportation of persons. Furth...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (HC)on imposition of penalty on directors of a company under the Ce...
-
Recently, in a significant taxpayer-friendly ruling, the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT, in the case of Nikesh Bhagwandas Mehta vs. ITO , has clarifi...
-
Clarifications from the GST Council The GST Council has recommended the following clarifications on ISD and cross charge:
-
Section 68 -Cash credits Section 69 -Unexplained investments Section 69A - Unexplained money, etc Section 69B -Amount of investme...
-
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...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has recently notified the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 2025, introducing important p...
-
Income Tax Department had clarify that the renting of mobile tower would attract lower TDS Deductions u/s. 194-I and not u/s...
-
Selling a property can trigger a significant tax liability in the form of capital gains tax. However, the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows you...
No comments:
Post a Comment