9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 616 - AT - Income TaxValidity of notice issued u/s 143(2) Assessee file ROI on 02/08/2007 AO issue notice u/s 143(2) on 18/9/2008 Before 01/04/2008 time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2)(ii) within 12 months from the end of the FY, in which the ROI is filed Period reduce to 6 months w.e.f 01/04/08 Held that - The proviso to section 143(2) had undergone a change when the limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) was still live in the assessee s case i.e. on 1-4-08 the AO had time to issue notice u/s. 143(2). The provisions of section 143(2) of the Act are procedural in nature. The notice issued u/s. 143(2) by the AO on 18/9/08 and served on the assessee 19-09-2008 is within time. Appeal decide in favour of revenue Income Tax on winning of lottery in Sikim Whether Income Tax can be levied twice upon a same income, being income on account of winning of Sikkim Lottery, once under Sikim Income Tax Rules, 1948 and again under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 in the situation where Sikim is a state of India - Held that - Since the assessee was not resident within the territories comprised in the of State of Sikkim, the provision of section 10(26AAA) was not applicable to him and income from winning of lottery in Sikkim was liable to tax under the provisions of Indian Income-tax Act, 1961. Following the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Nirmala Mehta (2004 (4) TMI 43). Issue decided in favour of revenue
Issues:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Taxability of income from winning Sikkim Lottery under Indian Income Tax provisions. Issue 1: Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the notice issued on 18th September 2008 was beyond the period of limitation as per the proviso to section 143(2) Act. The appellant relied on the proviso before and after the amendment on 1st April 2008, stating that the notice was invalid. However, the respondent contended that the amendment to the proviso was applicable from 1st April 2008, extending the limitation to 30th September 2008. The Tribunal held that the notice issued on 18th September 2008 was within the extended limitation period, making it valid. The decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in a similar case was also considered, confirming the validity of the notice. Issue 2: Taxability of income from winning Sikkim Lottery under Indian Income Tax provisions: The second issue revolved around the taxability of income from winning the Sikkim Lottery under Indian Income Tax provisions. The appellant argued that being a non-resident of Sikkim, the income should not be taxed under Indian provisions. It was contended that the appellant was not a Sikkimese as defined under the relevant provision and, therefore, the income should not be exempt under section 10(26AAA). The appellant cited a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case to support their argument. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stating that the appellant, being a resident of India and not Sikkim, was liable to pay tax under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, confirming the taxability of the income from winning the Sikkim Lottery under Indian provisions. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Kolkata dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirming the taxability of income from winning the Sikkim Lottery under Indian Income Tax provisions.
|
