9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 458 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 154 - nature of receipt - subsidy receipt - subsidy received by it as industrial promotion assistance from the State Government of West Bengal was capital in nature but was wrongly included in the income offered to tax - HELD THAT - As in the case of Ritum Jain 2022 (4) TMI 577 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein we find that a similar issue has been adjudicated by this Tribunal deciding in favour of the assessee as allowed the appeal and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the income from sales tax subsidy received from Govt. of West Bengal which has been inadvertently offered by the assessee for taxation and grant the appropriate relief / refund of the assessee.- Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the subsidy received by the assessee as Industrial Promotion Assistance (IPA) from the State Government under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Units) Scheme should be treated as a capital receipt instead of a revenue receipt. 2. Whether the claim for reclassification of the subsidy can be made through a rectification petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Subsidy as Capital Receipt: The assessee argued that the subsidy received from the West Bengal Government under the Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Units) Scheme should be classified as a capital receipt rather than a revenue receipt. The assessee referred to judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rasoi Ltd (335 ITR 438), which held that such incentives are capital receipts. The assessee also cited similar favorable decisions in its own case for earlier and subsequent years. The Tribunal noted that this issue was previously adjudicated in favor of the assessee in the case of Shri Ritum Jain vs. DCIT, where the sales tax subsidy was treated as a capital receipt. 2. Claim Through Rectification Petition under Section 154: The assessee filed a rectification petition under Section 154, claiming that the subsidy was wrongly included in the taxable income. Both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] rejected the petition, stating that the issue was not a mistake apparent from the record and could not be claimed through a rectification petition. The Tribunal, however, found that the inclusion of a non-taxable capital receipt in the taxable income constituted a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Vijay Gupta vs. CIT, where it was held that no tax can be levied or collected except by the authority of law, and if an assessee mistakenly includes a non-taxable amount in their income, they may bring it to the AO's notice for necessary relief. The Tribunal also emphasized that the bar on making a fresh claim through a rectification petition is applicable to the AO but not to higher authorities, including the Tribunal. The Tribunal has the power to entertain additional grounds or claims that were available when the return was filed, as supported by decisions from higher courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities failed to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 154 appropriately. It directed the AO to exclude the sales tax subsidy from the taxable income and grant the necessary relief/refund to the assessee. The appeal was allowed, reversing the CIT(A)'s findings and following the precedent set in the case of Shri Ritum Jain vs. DCIT. Judgment: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the Court on 22nd November 2022 at Kolkata.
|
