CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.

Shri Ritum Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. Pan: Actpj 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Assessee’S Rectification Petition Filed U/S 154 Claiming The Subsidy Received By The Assessee As Industrial Promotion Assistance (Ipa) From The State Govt, Under West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance To Industrial Units) Scheme, As Capital Receipt In Place Of Revenue Receipt. The Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Same Cannot Be Claimed By The Assessee In The Rectification Petition U/S 154 Since The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Case Of Goetze India Ltd. Vs Cit In 157 Taxman 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Fact That The Assessee’S Case Is Squarely Covered By Judicial Decisions On Similar Facts In The Case Of Sharda Cropchem Ltd. Vs Dcit In 71 Itr (Trib) 141 & Dcit & Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills In 130/Asr/2014. Therefore, The Action Of 2 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 The Ld. Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Is Unjustified & The Claim Needs To Be Allowed.

…within the contemplation of law, the assessee may bring the same to the notice of the assessing officer, which if satisfied, may grant the assessee necessary relief and refund the tax paid in excess, if any. 19. In CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del), this court held that merely because the assessee wrongly included the income in its return for a particular year, it cannot confer jurisdiction on the department to tax that income in that year even though legally such income did not pertain to that year. 20. The Bombay High Court in Balmukund Acharyavs DCIT, CIT and UOI 310 ITR 310 held t…