When this appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel Shri JP Shah stated that the respondent-assessee company has gone into liquidation and he, therefore, would not appear for the said Company any longer. We have heard learned counsel Mr.M.R.Bhatt for the Revenue. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to issue notice to the Official Liquidator of the respondent Company.
The questions framed while admitting the appeal are as under:
"1.Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that by rectification under section 154 it was not competent to tax the unpaid liabilities under section 43B while amending the intimation given under section 143(1)(a).
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that adjustment of unpaid liabilities was disputable and hence not within the purview of adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act, and the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that unpaid liabilities were not allowable in view of the statutory provision contained in Section 43B?"
Though two separate questions were framed, the central issue is with respect to exercise of powers under section 154 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer once he had previously made prima facie assessment in exercise of powers under section 143(1)(1) of the Act in the return of income filed by the assessee.
The Assessing Officer, while making prima facie adjustments had not made any adjustments towards total amount of Rs.23,13,745/- under section 43B of the Act. However, it has come on record that out of such amount, substantial amount came to be paid though after 31.3.90, but before the due date. It appears that the dispute thereafter remained only with respect to Rs.6,60,875/-. Though the counsel for the Revenue vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer validly exercised powers of rectification under section 154, we are not inclined to go into such question in the present appeal looking to the
disputed amount stands substantially reduced in view of the above noted facts. From the record, we further notice that the respondent Company had disclosed huge loss of more than Rs.4 crores during the year under consideration. In any case, the resultant effect would at the best be to reduce such loss.
In the facts of the case, therefore, we dispose of the appeal without answering the question framed.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (Harsha Devani, J.) (vjn)