DCIT, CC-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHREEM DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 56/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 June 2024AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) did not err in its findings. The Ld. CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee had made a mistake by including the suo-motu disclosure of Rs. 4,02,07,400/- for AY 2014-15 in the income for AY 2013-14. This amount had already been offered to tax and accepted for AY 2014-15, and taxing it again in AY 2013-14 would amount to double taxation, which is against settled principles of jurisprudence. The CIT(A) had verified this based on the computation of income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the Ld. CIT(DR) could not controvert the findings or dispute the amount offered in the subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-2014. The assessee, Ms. Shreem Developers, filed a return of income on 31.08.2014 declaring Rs. 6,71,04,700/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 14.08.2015 declaring Rs. 4,02,02,400/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disregarded the revised return, deeming it belated and manually filed, and proceeded with the original return, assessing income at Rs. 6,71,00,000/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that Rs. 4,02,00,000/- was a suo-motu disclosure for the subsequent Assessment Year 2014-2015 and its inclusion in AY 2013-2014 amounted to double taxation. The Revenue is aggrieved by this deletion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the provisions of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the total income to be brought to tax without any restrictions? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessment or re-assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be restricted to the incriminating material found during the search? (Question of law) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in assessing income at Rs. 6,71,04,700/- and ignoring the revised income of Rs. 2,68,97,300/-? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions (as per CIT(A)'s order): The assessee contended that it made a mistake by adding the disclosure for AY 2014-15 (Rs. 4,02,07,400/-) to the income of AY 2013-14. This amount was already offered to tax for AY 2014-15 and accepted by the AO. Assessing the income at Rs. 6,71,04,700/- would result in double taxation. The CIT(A) admitted an additional ground regarding double taxation, relying on principles from Jute Corporation and NTPC. Revenue's Contentions (as per grounds of appeal): The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating Section 153A, which requires total income to be brought to tax without restrictions, and in holding that assessment under Section 153A is restricted to incriminating material. The Revenue prayed for the AO's order to be restored.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

PER T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 05.12.2018, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-11, arising out of the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-2014.

I.T(SS).A No.56/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. M/s. Shreem Developers

Today is the 42nd day of hearing of the above appeals and 2. none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no authorization filed by the assessee. 3. The brief fact of the case is that in pursuant to the search action, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 31.08.2014, declaring total income of Rs.6,71,04,700/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised Return of Income on 14.08.2015, declaring correct income as Rs.4,02,02,400/- which is pertaining to subsequent Asst. Year 2014-15. However, the AO held that the revised Return was filed belatedly and manually and thereby proceeded with the original Return of Income and assessed tax income of Rs.6,71,00,000/-.

4.

Aggrieved against the same, the assesee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who deleted the addition saying that the suo- motto disclosure of Rs.4,02,00,000/- relating to the subsequent Asst. Year 2014-15 again assessed in the present Asst. Year will amounts to double taxation and thereby deleted the addition.

5.

Aggrieved against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal.

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the provisions of Section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which requires the total income to be brought under tax without any restrictions. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that such

I.T(SS).A No.56/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. M/s. Shreem Developers

assessment or re-assessment u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is to be restricted to the incriminating material found during the search. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in assessing income at Rs.6,71,04,700/- and ignoring revised income of Rs.2,68,97,300/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.

6.

The Ld.CIT(A), deleted the addition by observing as follows:

“...Ground no. 1, 2 and 3 are regarding the assessing income at Rs. 6.71.04,700/- ignoring the revised return of Rs. 2,68,97,300/- The AO has ignored the same on the ground that the revised return is filled manually and therefore it is invalid return. The appellant has also raised an additional ground that the same income cannot be taxed twice and therefore, the addition of Rs. 4.02 Crore needs to be deleted as it has already been offered to tax in A.Y 2014-15. This ground of appeal is admitted following the principals laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jute Corporation and NTPC. The assessee in his submission mentioned that at the time of filing return of income in response to notice u/s 153A, it has made a mistake by adding the amount of disclosure for A.Y. 2014-15 of Rs. 4,02.07,400/- to the income of A.Y. 2013-14. At the same time the assessee has already offered the income of suo-moto disclosure of Rs. 4,02,07,400/- for A.Y. 2014-15 in the return of income, which has been accepted by the AO for AY 2014- 15. This has been verified by the undersigned based on the computation of income filed before me. The assessee has not earned income of Rs. 6,71,04,700/- for AY 2013-14 because it is mistake committed by the assessee at the time of filing return It is settled principle of jurisprudence that delivery of justice should not be fettered by technicalities Moreover, if the income is assessed at Rs. 6,71,04,700/-, then the income to the extent of Rs. 4,02,07,400/- will be taxed twice in A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15 which is not correct. Looking to the facts of the case the assessee it is clear that the income of Rs. 4,02,07,400/- is taxed twice and therefore the appellant should be granted relief of Rs.4,02,07,400/- by assesing

I.T(SS).A No.56/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT Vs. M/s. Shreem Developers

income at Rs.2,68,97,300/- and not at Rs.6,71,04,700/-. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed…” 6. The Ld.CIT.DR could not controvert the findings of the Ld.CIT(A), and also not dispute the amount of Rs.4,02,00,000/- offered in the subsequent Asst. Year 2014-15, by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed 7.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28-06-2024

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad : Dated 28/06/2024 Manish

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →