9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 26 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Share Premium regarded as Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - proceedings declared under DTVSV - assessment order passed u/s. 143 3 rws 147 with regard to the amount representing the face value of shares issued by the assessee - HELD THAT - In assessee s case the declaration under DTVSV is made for the proceedings in which disputed amount pertaining to the allotment of shares to shell company on premium. The assessee has filed the necessary forms under DTVSV and the Form 5 confirming the settlement under the scheme issue by the PCIT. Therefore the impugned transaction in our view has been part of the proceedings declared under DTVSV. We see merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that without verification of the face value, the AO would not have assessed the premium amount and that the amount towards face value of the shares is part and parcel of the entire proceedings for which the assessee has opted DTVSV. Therefore assessee s case is covered by the ratio laid down in Gopalakrishnan Rajkumar 2022 (5) TMI 1388 - MADRAS HIGH COURT as followed by the decision of Shri Pavan Kandkur 2022 (11) TMI 1312 - ITAT BENGALURU - Respectfully following these decisions, we hold that the PCIT is not justified in initiating the proceedings u/s. 263 when the impugned proceedings are already declared under DTVSV scheme. Accordingly, the order of the PCIT is quashed. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. Applicability of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act (DTVSV) in preventing reopening of settled matters. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, arguing that the assessment order could not be reopened for matters settled under the DTVSV Act. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings on the grounds that the assessment order did not add back the share capital of Rs. 40,46,000/- related to the share premium, resulting in a short computation of income and tax. 2. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue: The PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make necessary inquiries or verifications regarding the receipt of Rs. 40,46,000/- as share capital. The PCIT argued that the AO only added back the share premium without considering the share capital, which should also have been treated as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and applied his mind while making the addition of Rs. 9,71,04,000/- for the share premium, and therefore, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous. The Tribunal found that the AO's failure to verify the share capital receipt justified the PCIT's invocation of Section 263. 3. Applicability of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act (DTVSV) in preventing reopening of settled matters: The assessee argued that under Section 5(3) of the DTVSV Act, no matter covered under the scheme could be reopened in any other proceedings. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Gopalakrishnan Rajkumar vs. PCIT, which held that once a dispute is settled under the DTVSV Act, revisional proceedings under Section 263 cannot be initiated for the same issue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the DTVSV scheme for the disputed share premium amount and filed the necessary forms, which were accepted. The Tribunal concluded that the issue of the face value of the shares was part and parcel of the proceedings declared under the DTVSV scheme. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in initiating proceedings under Section 263 when the impugned proceedings were already declared under the DTVSV scheme. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in initiating revisional proceedings under Section 263 when the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the DTVSV scheme. Consequently, the order of the PCIT was quashed, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
