2024 (8) TMI 552 - AT - Income Tax

Telescopic benefit of the addition made as sales during the A.Y. 2010-11 by giving to the counter sales during the A.Y. 2011-12 - HELD THAT - The issue available based on the facts is with respect to the accounting of sales by the assessee in the year A.Y. 2011-12 whereas the Revenue has stated that the income in the A.Y. 2010-11 is based on the confirmation by the vendor M/s. Raj Impex. It is trite law that the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the assessee in two different assessment years. Since the income has already been taxed in the hands of the assessee consequent to the order of the Tribunal it cannot be once again taxed in the hands of the assessee during the A.Y. 2011-12 where the sales have been accounted by the assessee in the books of accounts. We therefore find no merit in the argument of the Ld.DR thereby setting aside the orders of the Revenue Authorities and accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Telescopic benefit of addition made as sales during A.Y. 2010-11 and its impact on A.Y. 2011-12 assessment.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.CIT(A)] by the assessee, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y. 2011-12 assessment. The case involved a partnership firm engaged in various businesses, including processing and export of goods. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the income, which the Tribunal upheld for the A.Y. 2010-11, leading to subsequent disputes in the A.Y. 2011-12 assessment.

The primary contention raised by the assessee was regarding the telescopic benefit of the addition made in the A.Y. 2010-11 assessment, which was sought to be adjusted against the sales income of the A.Y. 2011-12 assessment. The Authorized Representative argued that the sales were accounted for in the subsequent year, and taxing the same income twice would lead to double taxation, emphasizing that the amount had already been added to the income in the previous assessment year.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Revenue Authorities, maintaining their position on the matter. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had rejected the petition under section 154 of the Act, stating that there was no impact on the profits declared by the assessee due to the addition made in the opening stock.

The Tribunal concluded that since the income had already been taxed in the hands of the assessee in the A.Y. 2010-11 assessment based on the Tribunal's order, it could not be taxed again in the A.Y. 2011-12 assessment where the sales had been properly accounted for. The principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice in two different assessment years was upheld, leading to the allowance of the grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the orders of the Revenue Authorities.