9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer took up scrutiny. He inter alia noticed the assessee to have declared long term capital gains arising from buyback of 4652 shares of Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. originally allotted @Rs.1 per share. The assessee had taken this allotment price as cost of acquisition. Thereafter, it quoted demutualization and corporatization of recognized stock and insertion of section 55(2)(ab) of the Act providing cost of equity shares allotted to a share holder of the recognized stock exchange to be the cost of acquisition of its membership; for submitting that it had acquired the said membership card at the cost of Rs. 65 lacs from 22.7.2004. The assessee accordingly sought to revise its capital gains originally offered to the tune of Rs. 2,37,17,342/- to that of Rs. 2,03,13,425/- by treating its original computation as suffering from mistake in view of the statutory provision of Section 55(2)(b). It adopted purchase cost of the shares at Rs. 651 per share instead of Rs. 1. The Assessing Officer declined to accept its recomputation by holding that time limit for filing revised return u/s.139(5) of the Act had already lapsed and the assessee's recomputation was not permissible without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l gain, the indexed cost of acquisition of 4,562 shares was taken at Rs. 34,03,975/-. The Assessing Officer had neither disputed the indexed cost of acquisition of the sold share nor disputed the cost of acquisition of shares as per provisions of sec. 55(2)(ab) of the Act. The contention of the Assessing Officer was that the time for furnishing the revised return of income had expired on 31.03.2010, therefore, the assessee cannot revise the income by filing of revised statement of income. For this contention, the Assessing Officer had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2006) 157 Taxman 1 (SC) in which it was held that there is no provision under the Income- tax Act to make the amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. The revised claim of the assessee for the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,03,13,425/- was .rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Long Term Capital Gain had been retained at Rs. 2,37,17,342/- as declared in the original return of income. The appellant had challenged this finding of the Assessing Officer in the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is duty bound and required to dispose of the appeal filed before him as per law. The present appeal is also decided under the aforesaid powers. 2.6 However, I agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel that though the assessee had not revised the return of income but the incorrect computation of capital gain was a mere mistake in taking the cost of acquisition shares of BSE Ltd. as per the provisions of sec. 55(2)(ab) of the Act and is merely a correction in the computation of income and not a claim of any fresh expense or deduction and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. is not applicable. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had not claimed any fresh deduction during the course of assessment proceedings but the appellant had only requested the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 16.12.2010 to modify the computation of Long Term Capital Gain already made. Therefore, in my opinion, the decision of the Hon'ble Appex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in facts of the case of the appellant. This perception can be understood by an example. If the appellant had declared the incorrect LTCG say, at Rs. 2,00,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of 4,562 shares of the BSE Ltd. for Rs. 2,03,13,425/- when the correct computation was brought to his notice. 2.7 The Ld. Counsel had submitted that a similar issue was decided by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramco International (2011) 332 ITR 306 (P&H) by holding that: The assessee claimed deduction under section BO-IB of the Incometax Act, 1961. Though assessee furnished Form 10CCB and other requisite documents, the Assessing Officer without referring to these documents made the assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of the assessee and the Tribunal also upheld the view of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal by the Department contending that the assessee made the claim by way of an application without filing a revised return and in such a situation deduction could not be allowed. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal had considered that issue and found that according to Form 10CCB filed during the assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was admissible. The assessee was not making any fresh claim and had duly furnished and submitted the Form for the claim under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
