9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1344 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - addition were made u/s 69 and 69C - AP applied the rate of tax u/s 115BBE @30% instead of @60% - HELD THAT - We find that in the present case, the AO has determined the assessee s income under section 69C of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act and while determining the rate of tax, has been apparently guided by the pre-amended law where the rate of tax was 30% as against rate of tax of 60% as per the amended law which was applicable for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, we find that the issue is not really about the applicability of section 115BBE rather the real issue is about the rate of tax as per section 115BBE - Where the ld PCIT has stated that the AO has not applied the rate of tax as per section 115BBE, what he meant was rate of tax of 60% given that the AO has already applied rate of tax of 30% as so submitted by the assessee. It is not the case of the assessee that the amended law is not applicable in its facts and circumstances of the case for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. It is therefore a case where the AO has erred in not applying the rate of tax as per the amended law as applicable for the impugned assessment year and the order so passed is therefore rightly held by the ld PCIT as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We therefore didn t find any justifiable basis to interfere with the order of the ld PCIT who has rightly exercise his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by setting aside the order of the AO to the extent of applying the rate of tax as per amended Section 115BBE for the impugned assessment year on the quantum of additions made and sustained u/s 69C of the Act. We sustain the order of the Ld. PCIT(C) in light of aforesaid directions and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Application of tax rate under Section 115BBE on additions under Sections 69 and 69C. 3. Merger of the Assessing Officer's order with the CIT(A)'s order. 4. Consideration of submissions by the PCIT. 5. Applicability of precedents and judicial decisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The Assessee contested the jurisdiction assumed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) ['Ld. PCIT(C)'] under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. PCIT(C) issued a notice under Section 263 and set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for applying the tax rate under Section 115BBE on the quantum of addition sustained by the CIT(A). The Assessee argued that the AO had already applied his mind and made a conscious decision to apply the normal rate of tax. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had erred in not applying the correct rate of tax as per the amended law applicable for the assessment year 2017-18 and upheld the Ld. PCIT(C)'s jurisdiction under Section 263. 2. Application of tax rate under Section 115BBE on additions under Sections 69 and 69C: The Ld. PCIT(C) observed that the AO had calculated tax at the normal rate on the assessed income, including additions under Sections 69 and 69C, instead of the rate specified under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made additions for unexplained expenditure under Section 69C but failed to apply the correct tax rate as per the amended Section 115BBE, which mandates a 60% tax rate for such additions. The Tribunal confirmed that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, justifying the Ld. PCIT(C)'s direction to apply the correct tax rate. 3. Merger of the Assessing Officer's order with the CIT(A)'s order: The Assessee argued that since the assessment order had been appealed and modified by the CIT(A), the AO's order had merged with the CIT(A)'s order and could not be revised under Section 263. The Tribunal clarified that while the quantum of addition was subject to appeal, the rate of tax to be applied was not adjudicated by the CIT(A) and thus remained a valid subject for revision under Section 263. 4. Consideration of submissions by the PCIT: The Assessee contended that the submissions made before the Ld. PCIT(C) were not properly considered. The Tribunal, however, found that the Ld. PCIT(C) had duly considered the submissions but found them unacceptable, as the AO had failed to apply the correct tax rate under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. PCIT(C)'s decision to set aside the AO's order for re-computation of tax. 5. Applicability of precedents and judicial decisions: The Assessee relied on various judicial decisions, including those of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Coordinate Chandigarh Benches, arguing that the AO had taken a possible view and the matter was debatable. The Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that the issue in the present case was the incorrect application of the tax rate under the amended Section 115BBE, which was not a debatable issue but a clear error. The Tribunal also referred to relevant precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Gujarat High Court, supporting the applicability of Section 115BBE. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's appeal, upholding the Ld. PCIT(C)'s order under Section 263. The Tribunal confirmed that the AO had erred in not applying the correct tax rate under the amended Section 115BBE for the assessment year 2017-18, and the Ld. PCIT(C) had rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction to rectify this error. The order of the Ld. PCIT(C) was sustained, and the appeal of the Assessee was dismissed.
|
