M/S. RAJPUTANA STEEL CASTINGS PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ASST. CIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1581/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed in principle that income already offered and taxed before the Settlement Commission cannot be taxed again in regular assessment. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of share application money. The assessee contended that this income was already offered and included in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission.

What were the issues?

Whether the same income, already offered and taxed before the Settlement Commission, can be added again in the regular assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 245D(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr.D.R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara, (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 28.02.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2009-10.

2.

The ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as under:

ITA No. 1581/Ahd/17 [M/s. Rajputana Stainless Ltd. vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s. Talent Infoway Limited.”

2.

When the matter was called for hearing before the Tribunal, the learned AR for the assessee submitted at the outset that the dispute relates to addition of Rs.50 Lakhs under s.68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s. Talent Infoway Limited. The learned AR for the assessee referred to page no.95 of the paper book in this regard and submitted that the assessee had moved an application before the Settlement Commission and the aforesaid addition presently in contest is already offered before the Settlement Commissions as included by way of additional income of Rs.6.22Crores as reflected in the order of the Settlement Commission under s.245D(4) of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee accordingly submitted that the income having already been offered before the Settlement Commission cannot once again be added in the regular assessment which will amount to double taxation.

3.

The learned DR for the Revenue submitted that the inclusion of Rs.50 Lakhs in the disclosure made before the Settlement Commissioner requires factual verification and accordingly the matter may be sent back to the file of the AO for appropriate verification.

4.

On consideration of the rival submissions, we are in agreement with the contention of the assessee on principle that the same income if offered and taxed in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, cannot be included once again in the present proceeding under s.143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO for factual verification on this aspect. It shall be open to the assessee to adduce evidence before the AO to support its

ITA No. 1581/Ahd/17 [M/s. Rajputana Stainless Ltd. vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - contention that addition in controversy already forms part of the assessed income framed by the Settlement Commission. Once the contention of the assessee is found to be true, the AO shall delete the addition to the extent of income already declared before the Commission.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/05/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 03/05/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →