Loading judgment…
Facts
During a survey, an excess stock of Rs. 15,21,176 was found. The assessee surrendered this amount as income. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment accepting the declared income. The Principal Commissioner (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, holding that the AO had not properly applied the provisions of the Act, specifically regarding the taxability of the surrendered income and the rate of taxation.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared the excess stock as income, and the AO had accepted this. The PCIT's view that the AO failed to apply proper provisions was contested by the assessee, who argued that the income was business income and Section 115BBE was not applicable. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and case laws, held that the PCIT's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Key Issues
Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act when the AO had considered the surrendered income and passed the assessment order, and whether the surrendered income should be taxed as business income or under Section 115BBE.
Sections Cited
263, 143(3), 133A, 139, 142(1), 68, 115BBE, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 644/JP/2024
assessee and even the question no quoted in the order being 21 is also not correct income is disclosed based on the question no. 19.
All these aspects suggest the order of assessment has been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the facts and explanation offered with that of the record is not verified we confirm the view of the ld. PCIT. Based on these observation ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Ground no. 1 and 3 being general and no specific grievance or arguments raised same are not adjudicated and for ground no. 4 there is no submission or contention raised by the assessee and since the appeal of the dismissed.
In terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in stands dismissed.
The fact of the case in is similar to the and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 661/JP/2024 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds.
Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by both the parties. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in in the case of Shri Rajeev Jain for the Assessment Year 2018-19 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta in for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
A copy of this common order be placed in the respective file of each appellant records.