9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Correctness of ITO's order under Section 155 of the IT Act. Analysis: The dispute in the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur revolves around the accuracy of the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) order issued under Section 155 of the IT Act. The assessee was a partner in two firms, and discrepancies were noted in the initial assessment of the shares income from these firms by the ITO. Subsequently, the ITO revised the assessments under Section 155 to reflect the correct figures, a decision upheld by the AAC on appeal by the assessee, leading to a second appeal before the Tribunal. The main contention raised by the assessee was that the corrections made under Section 155 were time-barred as they were passed after the permissible period from the final assessment of the firms. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument after examining the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal highlighted that Section 155 applies when a completed assessment of a partner in a firm requires a change in share income due to the firm's assessment or reassessment. In this case, as the original assessments of the firm in question had already been finalized before the orders under Section 155 were passed, the Tribunal concluded that Section 155 was not applicable. Instead, the Tribunal deemed the orders to be passed under Section 154, as there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the original assessment order regarding the assessee's share income. The Tribunal further emphasized that the assessee failed to disclose the accurate share income from the firm during the original assessment proceedings, leading the ITO to act under Section 155 based on incorrect information provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the notices issued to the assessee were in relation to orders under Section 155, but the circumstances of the case indicated that Section 154 should have been applied. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not benefit from the ITO's mistaken impression and fault, especially since the correct share income had already been communicated in the case of the firm. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the assessee was responsible for the lapse in disclosing accurate information and should not receive any leniency for his own default. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the correctness of the ITO's order under Section 155 of the IT Act, ruling that the orders should be deemed to be passed under Section 154 instead. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate disclosure by the assessee and denied any benefits resulting from the assessee's failure to provide correct information during the assessment process.
|
