M/S CHARIS AGRO AND COLD STORAGE,BELGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAVI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 19/PAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 September 2023AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI R.S. SYAL (Vice President), SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the Pr. CIT had the jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 154, as the issue of non-levy of capital gains under Section 45(4) was indeed raised in the original Section 263 proceedings. Therefore, the assessee's grounds failed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 5 days, which the ITAT condoned after finding the reasons to be bonafide. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 154 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether an order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 154 of the Act, modifying its own order passed under Section 263, is maintainable when the issue was initially raised in the Section 263 proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 263,Section 45(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Balu Anand

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 19-11-2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 05 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 05-04-2019 explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same and hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 05 days are condoned.

3.

The ld. AR vehemently argued that the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 154 of the Act modifying its own order passed u/s. 263 of the Act directing the AO to examine the issue of non-levy of capital gains as per section 45(4) of the Act is not maintainable. The ld. DR drew our attention to the order dated 26-03-2018 passed u/s. 263 of the Act and argued that the Pr. CIT raised issue in 263 proceedings itself regarding non-levy of capital gains as per section 45(4) of the Act and by mistake there was no direction given in the said order. He vehemently argued that the Pr. CIT is the well within its jurisdiction issuing a direction u/s. 154 of the Act and prayed to dismiss the appeal of assessee.

4.

After hearing both the parties, we find the Pr. CIT raised the issue of non-levy of capital gains in point No. 2 in 263 proceedings which is evident from para 2 of the original 263 order dated 26-03-2018 and therefore, we do not find any force in the argument of ld. AR that the order passed u/s. 154 is not maintainable. Therefore, the order of Pr. CIT passed u/s. 154 is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee fails and are dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2023.

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →