Loading judgment…
Facts
During a survey action, excess stock of Rs. 15,21,176/- was found. The assessee surrendered this amount as income, which was then accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, holding the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue because the AO did not invoke Section 115BBE and treated the income at normal slab rates.
Held
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was not justified. It reasoned that since the excess stock was identifiable and related to the assessee's regular business, it should be taxed as business income, and Section 115BBE is not applicable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had incorporated the transaction in its books of account and offered it for tax, making the AO's assessment not erroneous.
Key Issues
Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, holding the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, when the excess stock was treated as business income taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE.
Sections Cited
263, 143(3), 115BBE, 69, 133A, 143(2), 142(1), 127, 68
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.