9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 148 of the act. In our opinion, the department should not be allowed to take the advantage of any mistake committed by the assessee which may result prejudice to the assessee in double taxation of the same income. In the present case, ₹ 1,74,76,000/- has been assessed from A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2012-13 and therefore to tax the income again on the plea that assessee has wrongly returned the income on the original return of income and not giving effect to the rectification filed by the assessee is totally wrong and against the principle of natural justice. In our opinion, this income needs to be reduced from the return of income of the assessee as there is no provision in the income tax law to assess the same income twice. Even ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice under section 148 declaring total income of ₹ 3,22,254/- and assessed the income on the basis of original return filed declaring ₹ 1,77,98,254/-under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income at ₹ 1, 77,98, 254/- without any addition being made on reasons recorded under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ₹ 1,74,76,000/- without considering that the profits earned on the project were offered for tax in earlier assessment years as same income cannot be taxed twice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the year. Pertinent to state that assessee is following the percentage completion method and has been offering to tax the income on the basis of percentage of completion of work every year. According to the method of percentage completion method the assessee had already offered to tax of ₹ 1,74,76,000/- from A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2012-13. 5. Since the total profits accrued on the project from AY 2009- 10 to 2012-13 were ₹ 1,77,98,254/- therefore the profit to be declared during the year was to be ₹ 3,22,254/-, however, by mistake the assessee returned the total profit of ₹ 1,77,98,254/- resulting into income being retuned twice to the tune of ₹ 1,74,76,000/-. The assessee also moved rectification applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised return which was an invalid return under the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the tax audit report dated 05.09.2013 the net profit as per P L account was shown at ₹ 1,77,98,254/- whereas the balance sheet and P L Account signed on 21.11.2018 showed a current profit of ₹ 3,22,254/-. The Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee has not filed any return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and held that the reassessment proceedings can not be taken advantage and is not for the purpose of making claims which were not made in the original return of income and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, the undisputed facts are that the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 154 of the Act on 07.04.2016 requesting the AO to rectify the said assessment order. We also note that thereafter also the assessee requested through a couple of letters for giving effect to the rectification application, however, the same did not find favour with the AO. In the meantime the case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Act for the reason that the TDS has not been taken on some payments made on account of virtual architect fee, professional fee etc. which are not allowable as expenses. 9. In the return in response to notice under section 148 the assessee filed the return of correct income of ₹ 3,22,254/- however, the AO rejected the same on the ground that the assessee has reduced its income in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plea that assessee has wrongly returned the income on the original return of income and not giving effect to the rectification filed by the assessee is totally wrong and against the principle of natural justice. In our opinion, this income needs to be reduced from the return of income of the assessee as there is no provision in the income tax law to assess the same income twice. Even otherwise, the stand of the AO is not acceptable as in the reopened proceedings the issue which was subject matter of reopening i.e. non deduction of tax on certain expenses amounting to ₹ 38,00,500/- has not been added in the reassessment order and once the item proposed in the reasons recorded under section 148(2) did not find place in the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
