9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act - Correct allocation of capital gains and business profits - Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Mistake apparent from the record - Application of Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. [1965] 57 ITR 299 - Rectification resulting in further error - Application of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved M/s. Russel Properties Pvt. Ltd. selling a property with various assets in the assessment year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer initially allocated the net gain from the sale on a pro rata basis between land/building and other assets, resulting in capital gains and business profits. However, upon later review, the Officer rectified the allocation, leading to a different computation of profits. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held the rectification to be without jurisdiction, leading to the Revenue seeking direction from the High Court. The High Court considered the application of section 154 of the Income-tax Act and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Referring to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. [1965] 57 ITR 299, it was noted that in cases of selling a business as a going concern, separate computation of assets is not required, only capital gains or losses. The Tribunal found the original calculation by the Income-tax Officer to be correct, emphasizing that the rectification was based on a different view rather than a mistake apparent from records. The High Court further analyzed that the rectification resulted in further error, contrary to the purpose of section 154, citing the Supreme Court case ITO v. Arvind N. Mafatlal [1962] 45 ITR 271. Based on these considerations and the circulars issued by the Board of Direct Taxes, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the rule nisi was discharged, and the application was dismissed, with no order as to costs. Judge Mukul Gopal Mukherjee concurred with the judgment.
|
