9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 707 - HC - Income TaxRevision application u/s 264 - LTCG on extinguishment arising on account of loss arising on account of extinguishment of shares of Garden Silk value of shares of Garden silk pursuant to order passed by the NCLT - HELD THAT - Petitioner has not claimed LTCG on extinguishment arising on account of loss arising on account of extinguishment of shares of Garden Silk value of shares of Garden silk pursuant to order dated 01.01.2021 passed by the NCLT. Respondent No. 1 is however supposed to consider merits of the case while entertaining revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 264 of the Act and it is not in dispute that the petitioner has availed the remedy of revision within the prescribed period of limitation and the respondent therefore ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for loss on account of extinguishment of the value of shares in the investment of shares of Garden as per the order passed by the NCLT which was not claimed by the petitioner in the original return of income. Case of Pramod R. Agraval 2023 (10) TMI 1142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT is followed by this Court in case of Jindal Worldwide Limited 2024 (8) TMI 1437 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT as well as Shree Rudra Technocast Private Ltd. 2024 (10) TMI 186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein, in somewhat similar circumstances, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income under section 264 of the Act was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner which was left out in the original proceeding to be decided on merits. Adopting similar course of action, impugned order in the present case passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Principal Commissioner Surat-I respondent No. 1 to decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 264 of the Act on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner can claim Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) in a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after failing to claim it in the original return. 2. The applicability of Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act concerning the extinguishment of shares. 3. The scope and power of the Principal Commissioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Claim of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) in Revision Application: The petitioner filed a return for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 but failed to claim the LTCL due to an oversight. This loss arose from the extinguishment of shares of Garden Silk Mills Ltd, which were nullified following an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioner later sought to rectify this omission by filing a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that Section 264 allows for rectification of errors made by the assessee, not just those by subordinate authorities, and thus should permit the claim of LTCL. However, the Principal Commissioner rejected this application, stating that the LTCL was not claimed due to any disallowance or addition in the order under Section 143(1) and that the petitioner could not revise the return beyond the prescribed period. 2. Applicability of Section 2(22)(d) of the Income Tax Act: The petitioner contended that the extinguishment of shares should not be treated as a distribution of profits under Section 2(22)(d), as it involved the extinguishment of share capital under the IBC proceedings, not a reduction of capital leading to profit distribution. The Principal Commissioner, however, interpreted the extinguishment as akin to a capital reduction, thereby applying Section 2(22)(d). The petitioner argued that this interpretation was incorrect and that the LTCL on the extinguishment should be recognized based on settled legal positions. 3. Scope and Power under Section 264: The judgment extensively discussed the scope of Section 264, referencing several precedents. The petitioner cited cases such as Pramod R. Agrawal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others, arguing that Section 264's scope includes rectifying errors even if they are not apparent from the record. The court acknowledged that the Principal Commissioner should have considered the merits of the case and the petitioner's claim for LTCL, as Section 264 is intended to provide relief where the law permits. The court emphasized that the Principal Commissioner should ensure relief is provided to the assessee, considering all relevant materials, even those not initially part of the assessment record. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 by the Principal Commissioner and remanded the matter for reconsideration on merits. It directed the Principal Commissioner to allow the petitioner to submit requisite documents and to adjudicate the claim of LTCL within 12 weeks, ensuring a reasoned order that addresses all submissions by the petitioner. The court's decision underscores the broad remedial scope of Section 264, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to rectify genuine omissions in tax filings.
|
