9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, one of the conditions (prejudicial to the interest of Revenue) is not getting satisfied in the assessee`s case under consideration. Therefore, we note that the issue raised by Ld.PCIT is revenue neutral, as it does give loss to the Revenue. Since one of conditions is that order should be prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which is absent in assessee s case under consideration. We note that although the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous because the right income should be taxable in right assessment year however, since the tax rates are same in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 therefore, we note that there is no loss to the Revenue. Considering the smallness of amount and considering the fact that tax rate in both the assessment years are same, hence there is no loss to the Revenue, (one of the conditions is not satisfied to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263) therefore, we do not instruct the Assessing Officer to tax the impugned amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in assessment year 2014-15, as no any useful purpose would be served and it would be unnecessary burden on the Assessing Officer to make the compliance to tax the disputed amount Rs.9,00,000/- in assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermining total income at Rs.65,04,690/- after making addition of Rs.55,80,040/-, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.4,816/- and Rs.4,50,000/- on account of unaccounted income, undisclosed rent income, undisclosed interest income and income from undisclosed sources respectively. 4. Later, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(in short "ld. PCIT"] has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.On examination of the case records, it was noticed by ld PCIT that a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 03.03.2015. During the course of survey, a Diary-2004, containing date-wise actual cash sale receipts and noting regarding financial transactions related to various assessment years, was found and impounded. On being confronted with the contents of the diary, assessee vide letter dated 23.11.2016 and in his statement recorded on oath on 16.12.2016, stated that he and his brothers, namely, Shri Tulsidas G. Diyalani, Shri Prakash G. Diyalani and Shri Ramesh G. Diyalani, made investments of Rs.1,20,00,000/- in properties during the period 2001-2005. It was also stated by the assessee that the investments made were in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld PCIT noted that assessee has remained silent on the issue of Rs.9,00,000/- received during the year under consideration in his written submission. With reference to the written submission dated 06.09.2018, a factual report was called from the Assessing Officer through the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bharuch vide letter dated 07.09.2018. 7. The Ld.Jt-CIT vide letter dated 19.09.2018 submitted the report of the A.O. dated 18.09.2018. The Assessing Officer reported that a diary-2004, marked as Annexure BF-21, impounded during the survey u/s 133A of the Act on 03.03.2015 at the business premises of the assessee, contained date-wise actual cash sale receipts and noting regarding financial transactions related to various assessment years. Accordingly, the cases of the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 and 2013-14 were reopened and additions of Rs.7,60,630/- and Rs.20,39,370/- respectively aggregating to Rs.28,00,000/- (Rs.7,60,630 + Rs.20,39,370) were made on account of the cash receipts from the sale of properties situated in Mumbai. However, during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y.2015-16, on verification of page Nos. 19 to 22 of the diary impounded during the surv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alizing assessment proceedings for A.Y.2014-15 u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, assessee, in his submission dated 06.09.2018, stated that during A.Y.2010-11 and 2013-14, total money received was Rs.34,50,000/- and Rs.92,50,000/- out of which his share was Rs,7,60,630/- and Rs.20,39,370/- respectively. However, assessee remained silent in respect of the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- received during the year under consideration. 10. The ld PCIT thus noted that total income of the previous year of the assessee is chargeable to tax u/s 4 of the Act. Two of the principles deductible from the section are: (i) that the tax is levied on the total income of the assessable entity and (ii) that each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purpose of assessment and the profits made or liabilities or losses incurred before or after the relevant previous year are wholly immaterial in assessing income of the year. Useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam Vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC). Further, as per section 5(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the total income of any previous year of a person who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014-15 than in that situation, necessary instruction should be given to the Assessing Officer to make the adjustment in the previous assessment year's (2013-14) taxable income and such instruction may be given by the Tribunal as per section 254(1) of the Act. 16. On the other hand, Learned CIT-DR for the Revenue submitted that relevant income should be taxable in the relevant assessment year. The amount of Rs.9,00,000/- does not pertain to assessment year 2013-14, however it pertains to assessment year 2014-15 under consideration. Therefore, it should be taxable in the relevant assessment year inasmuch as this amount pertains to total aggregate amount of Rs.28,00,000/- on the principle that the right income should be taxable in the right assessment year. Therefore, ld DR stated that order passed by the assessing officer is not in accordance with law, hence order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. 17. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the parties and perusing the judicial decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR, we find that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether amount of Rs. Rs.9,00,000/- should be taxable in assessment year 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that order should be prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which is absent in assessee's case under consideration. We note that although the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous because the right income should be taxable in right assessment year however, since the tax rates are same in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 therefore, we note that there is no loss to the Revenue. Besides, the disputed amount is very small (at Rs.9,00,000/- only), and ld PCIT pointed out that it should be taxable in assessment year 2014-15 instead in assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, considering the smallness of amount and considering the fact that tax rate in both the assessment years are same, hence there is no loss to the Revenue, (one of the conditions is not satisfied to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263) therefore, we do not instruct the Assessing Officer to tax the impugned amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in assessment year 2014-15, as no any useful purpose would be served and it would be unnecessary burden on the Assessing Officer to make the compliance to tax the disputed amount Rs.9,00,000/- in assessment year 2014-15. At this juncture it is appropriate to quote a famous observation mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
