SAROJ BALA,UNA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 427/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The compensation received by the assessee for land acquisition, including enhanced compensation, was demonstrated to have a clear source and manner. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the CIT's order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was reopened by the AO based on information about bank deposits. An addition of Rs. 98,26,659/- was made. The CIT invoked Section 263, holding the assessment order erroneous as it prejudiced the revenue by not charging taxes at higher rates and considering penalty initiation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 to direct charging of taxes at higher rates under Section 115BBE and initiating penalty under Section 271AAC when the source and manner of enhanced compensation for land acquisition were explained?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC,Section 68,Section 10(37)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Muskan Garg,CA
For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Hearing: 18.03.2025Pronounced: 19.03.2025

Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Muskan Garg,CA Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘the CIT’] dated 12.03.2024 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Though the assessee has taken two grounds of appeal

, but her grievance revolves around a single issue namely, ld. A.Y.2017-18

2. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment

order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee did not file her return of income. The AO armed with information that assessee had made deposits in her Canara Bank account, reopened the assessment. He ultimately made an addition of Rs.98,26,659/- in an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B on 24.03.2022.

4.

The ld. CIT harboured a belief that assessment order is erroneous as much as it caused prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. He was of the view that on the addition made by the AO, the taxes ought to have been charged under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act instead of the normal rates as done by the AO in the impugned assessment. He further observed that AO ought to have considered the initiation of penalty under Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act. A.Y.2017-18 3 4.1 In reply to the Show Cause Notice of the ld. CIT, the assessee has contended that land owned by her late husband Shri Kabool Singh was acquired by State Government of Himachal Pradesh for construction of a Housing Board Colony at Una. She had received compensation on this agriculture land. She was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the acquisition authorities and ultimately dispute travelled upto the Hon'ble High Court.

1.

The amount was deposited in the Hon'ble High Court and it was credited to the Saving Bank account of the assessee with Canara Bank. It was also brought to the notice that the additions made to her income by the AO are in challenge before the CIT(A), therefore, no fresh directions under Section 263 be issued. But CIT(A) did not accept contentions of the assessee and relegated the issue to the AO for charging the rate of tax as per Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and initiation of the penalty as required under Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act.

5.

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully.The ld. counsel for the appellant A.Y.2017-18 4 has placed on record a certificate from the

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →