DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Shreem Developers, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 56/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1368 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“D”BENCH Before:ShriT.R.SenthilKumar,JudicialMember And ShriMakarandVasantMahadeokar,AccountantMember TheDCIT, CentralCircle-1(4), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) Vs Ms.ShreemDevelopers 3 rd Floor,Solitaire Building, Opp.BombayGarage, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. PAN:ABMFS1534L (Respondent) RevenueRepresented:Dr.DarsiSumanRatnam,CIT.DR AssesseeRepresented:None Dateofhearing:26-06-2024 Dateofpronouncement:28-06-2024 आदेश/ ORDER PERT.RSENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER:- ThisappealisfiledbytheRevenueasagainsttheappellate orderdated05.12.2018,passedbytheCommissionerofIncome Tax[Appeals]-11,arisingoutoftheassessmentorderspassed undersection143(3)r.w.s153AoftheIncomeTaxAct,1961 (hereinafterreferredtoas‘theAct’)relatingtotheAssessmentYear 2013-2014. IT(SS)ANo.56/Ahd/2019 AsstYear2013-2014 I.T(SS).ANo.56/Ahd/2019A.Y.2013-14PageNo DCITVs.M/s.ShreemDevelopers 2 2.Todayisthe42 nd dayofhearingoftheaboveappealsand noneappearedonbehalfoftheassesseeandnoauthorizationfiled bytheassessee. 3.Thebrieffactofthecaseisthatinpursuanttothesearch action,theassesseefileditsReturnofIncomeon31.08.2014, declaringtotalincomeofRs.6,71,04,700/-.Thereafter,theassessee filedarevisedReturnofIncomeon14.08.2015,declaringcorrect incomeasRs.4,02,02,400/-whichispertainingtosubsequentAsst. Year2014-15.However,theAOheldthattherevisedReturnwas filedbelatedlyandmanuallyandtherebyproceededwiththe originalReturnofIncomeandassessedtaxincomeof Rs.6,71,00,000/-. 4.Aggrievedagainstthesame,theasseseefiledtheappeal beforetheLd.CIT(A),whodeletedtheadditionsayingthatthesuo- mottodisclosureofRs.4,02,00,000/-relatingtothesubsequent Asst.Year2014-15againassessedinthepresentAsst.Yearwill amountstodoubletaxationandtherebydeletedtheaddition. 5.AggrievedagainsttheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theRevenueisin appealbeforeusraisingthefollowinggroundsofappeal. 1.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,the Ld.CIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsinnotappreciatingthe provisionsofSection153AoftheI.T.Act,1961whichrequiresthe totalincometobebroughtundertaxwithoutanyrestrictions. 2.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,the Ld.CIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsinholdingthatsuch I.T(SS).ANo.56/Ahd/2019A.Y.2013-14PageNo DCITVs.M/s.ShreemDevelopers 3 assessmentorre-assessmentu/s.153AoftheI.T.Act,1961istobe restrictedtotheincriminatingmaterialfoundduringthesearch. 3.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,the Ld.CIT(A)haserredinassessingincomeatRs.6,71,04,700/-and ignoringrevisedincomeofRs.2,68,97,300/-. 4.Onthefactsandinthecircumstancesofthecaseandinlaw,the Ld.CIT(A)oughttohaveupheldtheorderoftheA.O. 5.Itis,therefore,prayedthattheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)besetaside andthatoftheA.O.berestoredtotheaboveextent. 6.TheLd.CIT(A),deletedtheadditionbyobservingasfollows: “...Groundno.1,2and3areregardingtheassessingincomeatRs. 6.71.04,700/-ignoringtherevisedreturnofRs.2,68,97,300/-The AOhasignoredthesameonthegroundthattherevisedreturnis filledmanuallyandthereforeitisinvalidreturn.Theappellanthas alsoraisedanadditionalgroundthatthesameincomecannotbe taxedtwiceandtherefore,theadditionofRs.4.02Croreneedstobe deletedasithasalreadybeenofferedtotaxinA.Y2014-15.This groundofappealisadmittedfollowingtheprincipalslaiddownby theHon'bleSupremeCourtincaseofJuteCorporationandNTPC. Theassesseeinhissubmissionmentionedthatatthetimeoffiling returnofincomeinresponsetonoticeu/s153A,ithasmadea mistakebyaddingtheamountofdisclosureforA.Y.2014-15ofRs. 4,02.07,400/-totheincomeofA.Y.2013-14.Atthesametimethe assesseehasalreadyofferedtheincomeofsuo-motodisclosureof Rs.4,02,07,400/-forA.Y.2014-15inthereturnofincome,which hasbeenacceptedbytheAOforAY2014-15.Thishasbeen verifiedbytheundersignedbasedonthecomputationofincome filedbeforeme.TheassesseehasnotearnedincomeofRs. 6,71,04,700/-forAY2013-14becauseitismistakecommittedby theassesseeatthetimeoffilingreturnItissettledprincipleof jurisprudencethatdeliveryofjusticeshouldnotbefetteredby technicalitiesMoreover,iftheincomeisassessedatRs. 6,71,04,700/-,thentheincometotheextentofRs.4,02,07,400/- willbetaxedtwiceinA.Y.2013-14andA.Y.2014-15whichisnot correct.Lookingtothefactsofthecasetheassesseeitisclearthat theincomeofRs.4,02,07,400/-istaxedtwiceandthereforethe appellantshouldbegrantedreliefofRs.4,02,07,400/-byassesing I.T(SS).ANo.56/Ahd/2019A.Y.2013-14PageNo DCITVs.M/s.ShreemDevelopers 4 incomeatRs.2,68,97,300/-andnotatRs.6,71,04,700/-.Therefore, thisgroundofappealisallowed...” 6.TheLd.CIT.DRcouldnotcontrovertthefindingsofthe Ld.CIT(A),andalsonotdisputetheamountofRs.4,02,00,000/- offeredinthesubsequentAsst.Year2014-15,bytheLd.CIT(A). Thus,wedonotfindanyinfirmityintheorderpassedbythe Ld.CIT(A).Thus,theappealfiledbytheRevenueisdevoidofmerits andthesameisherebydismissed. 7.IntheresulttheappealfiledbytheRevenueisdismissed Orderpronouncedintheopencourton28-06-2024 Sd/-Sd/- (MAKARANDVASANTMAHADEOKAR)(T.R.SENTHILKUMAR) ACCOUNTANTMEMBERJUDICIALMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated28/06/2024 Manish