P.V.CHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1575/CHNY/2013Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 September 2017AY 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 held that since the order of the Assessing Officer classifying the receipt was confirmed by multiple higher authorities, there was no error to be corrected under Section 154. Therefore, the petition under Section 154 was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee disclosed a receipt of Rs. 2,74,12,448/- which was assessed under 'Income from other sources'. This classification was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), the Tribunal, and the High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether a petition under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act is maintainable to correct an alleged error in classification when the order has already been confirmed by higher appellate authorities, including the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Smt. C. Yamuna, JCIT
Hearing: 05.07.2017Pronounced: 06.09.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Coimbatore, dated 07.05.2013 and pertains to assessment year 2006-07.

2.

Having heard Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee and Smt. C. Yamuna, the Ld. Departmental Representative. We find that there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee.

3.

In the original assessment, the assessee disclosed the receipt of `2,74,12,448/- and the same was assessed under the head “Income from other sources”. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The matter reached High Court also. The High Court also confirmed the classification of the head under which the receipt of `2,74,12,448/- was assessed. After that, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Petition under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on the ground that it is only a capital receipt, therefore, it has to be assessed under the head “short-term capital gain” at the rate of 10%.

4.

The Assessing Officer rejected the petition filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that the order of the Assessing Officer was already confirmed by the High Court.

In fact, the assessee filed a petition for review of its order before the High Court. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the order of the Assessing Officer classifying the receipt of `2,74,12,448/- was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), subsequently by this Tribunal and also by the High Court, it cannot be said that there is an error in the order of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the petition filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Act is not maintainable. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →