DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ASHAR IT PARK, THANE WEST vs. HAREN PERFORMANCE FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, TARAPUR TAL, PALGHAR, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3160/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 August 2024AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 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 noted that the CPC, by a subsequent order under Section 154, rectified the mistake and accepted the assessee's option for taxation under Section 115BAB. Consequently, the tax liability was determined as per the assessee's calculation.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order that allowed the assessee to exercise the option for taxation regime under Section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had initially declared total income and opted for Section 115BAB, but this was denied by the Assessing Officer, leading to a demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the assessee's claim correct and directed recalculation of tax liability under Section 115BAB.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to avail the taxation regime under Section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act, and if the Revenue's appeal against the order allowing this option is now infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAB,Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Jain, A.R
For Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Addl. CIT) Sr. D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 20.03.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2023-24.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessee had declared its total income at Rs.7,05,48,234/- by filing its return of income on 31.10.2023 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and vide intimation/order dated 22.12.2023 issued by the CPC/AO, the income of the Assessee was accepted as declared by the Assessee, however, the option exercised by the Assessee for taxation regime u/s 115AB of the Act was denied by the Assessing Officer (AO)/CPC, which resulted into taxation of the income at 30% and thereby raising a demand of Rs.1,29,79,170/-.

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the denial of the option exercised by the Assessee for taxing the income u/s 115BAB of the Act, before the Ld. Commissioner, who by considering written submissions and copies of documentary evidence/explanation etc. found the claim of the Assessee as correct and therefore vide impugned order dated, directed the AO to recalculate the tax liability u/s 115BAB of the Act.

4.

Subsequently, the CPC vide order dated 2.5.24 u/s 154 of the Act rectified the mistake and accepted the option exercised by the Assessee for taxing the income of the Assessee u/s 115BAB of the Act and consequently determined the tax liability, as per calculation of the Assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the instant appeal filed by the Revenue Department against the impugned order has become infructuous and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 115BAB

All 46 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →