ASHOK JIAN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6249/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2006-073 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the short-term capital gains should be treated as business income. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed a CIT(A) order that upheld the AO's decision to treat short-term capital gains as business income. The appeal was filed belatedly, but the delay was condoned by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether short-term capital gains should be classified as business income. The Tribunal also considered the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish SoodShri Ashok Jain

For Appellant: Shri Harshal Doshi
For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Hearing: 19.03.2018Pronounced: 25.05.2018

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-54, Mumbai dated 13.06.2016 for A.Y. 2006-07.

2.

In this appeal the only grievance of the assessee is against the action of the AO in treating the short term capital gain of `44,26,537/- as business income.

3.

Before proceeding further it may be noted that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 20 days. The assessee has sought condonation of delay and it has been averred in the affidavit dated 02.02.2017, a copy of which is on record, that the delay was on account of unintended reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It is averred that the concerned professional

Shri Ashok Jain who was to file the appeal lost sight of the date by inadvertence and work pressure and there was no wilful intention in not filing the appeal. The bonafides of the averments made in the affidavit has not been assailed before us and considering the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katji & Others (167 ITR 471) the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Accordingly rival counsels were heard on merits of the case.

4.

Notably, the captioned appeal is arising from the assessment finalised by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) consequent to a search action on the assessee on 12.10.2011. In the impugned assessment the AO referred to the original assessment made by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 10.11.2008 and treating the short term capital gain of `44,26,537/- as business income. Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who endorsed the action of the AO by noticing that in the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 10.11.2008, similar action of the AO has since been confirmed by the Tribunal in the appeal.

Accordingly he dismissed the stand of the assessee.

5.

Before us the learned A.R. fairly conceded that the position brought out by the learned CIT(A) continues to hold the field in as much as the order of the Tribunal affirming the assessment of short term capital gain as business income continues to prevail. In view of the above we hereby confirm the order of the CIT(A) and the assessee fails in this appeal.

Shri Ashok Jain 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 153A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →