SADIYA RAOOF DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-21(3), MUMBAI

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-48, Mumbai [ the ld CIT (A) ] for Assessment Year 2013-14 dismissing appeal of the assessee filed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax- 21(3), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) on 15.02.2016.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a individual who filed returned of income on 13th July, 2013 declaring income of Rs. 41,32,19,840/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS).

During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee of long term capital gain was examined on sale of shares of M/s Liberty Phosphate Ltd. and M/s Liberty Urvarak Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, while calculating the cost of acquisition of 2,02,500 shares of M/s Liberty Urvarak Ltd, assessee pointed out that hat there is an inadvertent mistake and the cost of acquisition was taken at Rs. 2,02,500/- instead of Rs. 20,25,000/-. The assessee submitted the revised computation of income.

The Ld Assessing Officer noted that the time allowed for revising the return of income has already expired and therefore, the claim of the assessee was not accepted.

Accordingly, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 41,47,99,842/- vide assessment order dated 15th February, 2016.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) also concurred with the view of the learned Assessing Officer that since the time for filing of revised return is already lapsed, it is not possible to entertain any claim for deduction. Further, on the merits of the case, he held that assessee only furnished the vouchers which did not have

Thus, the assessee is aggrieved with the order and preferred the appeal before us.

The learned Authorized Representative submitted that assessee has not made any fresh claim but has only asked the learned Assessing Officer to correct the arithmetic error in the computation of the capital gain on sale of shares where the cost of acquisistion is wrongly punched , which the learned Assessing Officer refused to do and the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The fact clearly shows that during the previous year assessee has sold 2,02,500 equity shares of one company which was received by him through gift from her sister. The cost of acquisition of the shares in the hands of the sister was Rs. 20,25,000/-. The above cost of acquisition was indexed to the year of sale at Rs. 35,94,375/-. The claim of the assessee is that at the time of filing of the return of income, the cost of the acquisition of the share by mistake taken as Rs. 2,02,500/-. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted the complete detail with respect to the cost of acquisition and requested to consider the correct cost of acquisition of Rs. 20,25,000/- instead of Rs. 2,02,500/-. The learned Assessing Officer refused to do the same and the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same. We find that assessee has not made any fresh claim before the learned Assessing Officer but merely asked to correct wrong punching of the data of the cost of acquisition in the computation of the total income. According to us, only the correct income of the assessee should have been charged to tax. The learned CIT(A) also did not

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.