9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 9-6-2015 - Shri Pramod Kumar and Shri S.S. Godara,JJ. For the Petitioner: Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr.D.R., For the Respondent: Shri Mehul Thakker, A.R. ORDER PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This Revenue s appeal for A.Y.2008-09, arises from order of the CIT(A)-XVI Ahmedabad dated 26.5.2011 passed in case no.CIT(A)-XIV/ACIT/Cir.-3/700/10-11, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act in short the Act . 2. The Revenue s sole substantive ground reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to adopt Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of BSELtd. at ₹ 2,03,13,425/-, which is as per revised computation submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings, instead of ₹ 2,37,17,342/- as per the return of income, even though the assessee failed to file revised return of income within the time available u/s.l39(5) of the IT Act. 2.1 The assessee-company filed its return on 30.9.2008 admitting income of ₹ 14,00,83,790/-. The Assessing 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 Stoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings, the appellant noticed the mistake in computation of Long Term Capital Gain arised from the sale of shares of the BSE Ltd. The mistake was regarding considering the cost of acquisition of shares of BSE Ltd. The BSE Ltd. had allotted 10,000 shares to the appellant company @ rupee one per share. BSE Ltd. had decided to buy back 4,562 shares on 18.05.2007 at a consideration of ₹ 2,37,22,400/-. The appellant had taken the cost of acquisition of 4,562 shares so sold under the buy back scheme of the BSE Ltd. at ₹ 5,066/- and declared the Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 2,37,17,342/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the appellant that as per the provisions of sec. 55(2)(ab) of the Act, the cost of 10,000/- shares of BSE Ltd. should have been taken for ₹ 65,10,000/-. Noticing this mistake, the appellant vide its letter dated 16.12.2010 (filed in the office of Assessing Officer on 20.12,2010) furnished the revised computation of Long Term Capital Gain for ₹ 2,03,13,425/-. In the revised computation of such capital gain, the indexed cost of acquisition of 4,562 shares was taken at ₹ 34,03,975/-. The Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of sec. 119 are only binding in nature. The appellant therefore, cannot derive any support from the aforesaid Circular and from the aforesaid relied upon decisions as quoted above. 2.5 The Ld. Counsel had made a reference to the powers of the CIT(A) in his second submission and tried to emphasise that the CIT(A) had the powers of the Assessing Officer and that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as duty to correct all errors in the proceedings, which are in appeal. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. I have considered such submission of the Ld. Counsel. The powers of the CIT(A) for disposing of the appeal and admittance of additional grounds/additional evidence have been well defined not only in the Income-tax Act, 1961 but well explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the various High Courts at several occasions. However, this submission of the Ld. Counsel has no relevance. This could have been considered if any additional ground or any additional evidence was being admitted. Otherwise, the CIT(A) is duty bound and required to dispose of the appeal filed before him as per law. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due are collected. This court, in an unreported decision in the case of Vinay Chandulal Satia v. N.O. Parekh, CIT, Special Civil Application No. 622 of 1981, rendered on August 20,1981, has laid down the approach that the authorities must adopt in such matters in the following terms: The Supreme Court has observed in numerous decisions, including Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, and Babhutmai; Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibal R. Tarte, AIR 1975 SC 1297, that the State authorities should not raise technical pleas if the citizens have a lawful right and the lawful right is being denied to them merely on technical grounds. The State authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt. The correct computation of the Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of 4,562 shares of the BSE Ltd. was worked out to ₹ 2,03,13,425/- and the Assessing Officer had also not disputed this computation. The appellant on mistaken .belief had computed it for ₹ 2,37,17,342/-. The Assessing Officer was required to accept the-correct computation of Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. for ₹ 2,03,13,425/-. His aforesaid finding is rejected and he is directed to tax the Long Term Capital Gain for ₹ 2,03,13,425/- only. The first ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. Therefore the Revenue is in appeal. 4. We have heard both sides and gone through the relevant findings. Admitted facts of the case stand narrated hereinabove. The CIT(A) has accepted the assessee s revised computation as per section 55(2)(ab) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had refused the very relief by quoting the case law of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) and also the fact that the time limit for filing revised return had already elapsed. This is not the Revenue s case that the assessee is not otherwise entitled for the relief in question under the provisions of the Act in seeking the impugned recomputation. It only contends that once there was no time left for filing a revised return, the impugned relief ought not to have been granted. A perusal of the case law hereinabove itself clarifies that the same does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of appellate authorities under the Act. Therefore, we refuse to agree with the Revenue s mere technical plea and affirm the CIT(A) fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
