MANJU OSATWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-10, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 707/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 January 2020AY 2014-152 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 once income offered under IDS, 2016 is accepted and taxes paid, the assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for items already declared under the scheme. Such revision would be against the spirit of the IDS.

What were the facts?

The assessee had offered Long Term Capital Gain to tax under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016. The Pr. CIT revised the assessment order under Section 263, proposing additions related to purchase price and commission, which were part of the IDS declaration.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order can be revised under Section 263 when the income in question was declared and taxed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & S.S. Godara]

order : January 15th, 2020 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Kolkata dated 29.01.2019 u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2014-15.

2.

After hearing rival contentions we find that the assessee has already offered Long Term Capital Gain of ₹74,24,380/- to tax under Income Declaration Scheme (‘IDS’ for short), 2016 and paid taxes thereto. This fact was stated before the ld. Pr. CIT by the assessee. The ld. DR also acknowledges the same. The Pr. CIT proposes that the purchase price of 1,00,000/- is to be added and the commission payment to the tune of ₹3,76,219/- has to be brought to tax, in his order passed u/s 263 of the Act.

3.

In our view, once the income offered and the IDS, 2016 is accepted by the Department, an order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be revised, as the items of addition in question directed by the ld. Pr. CIT was part of the IDS, 2016 application and not part of the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

4.

Even otherwise once a person has availed IDS, 2016 and paid taxes, in our view it is not correct for the Pr. CIT to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act as this Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manju Osatwal. would be against the spirit of the scheme. Thus we cancel the same and allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 15th January, 2020.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →