9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn the amount before the period of three years. Although, the assessee has offered the income to tax in the AY 2018-19, however the AO has brought to tax the same in AY 2016-17 and the matter is still pending before the ld.CIT(A). When there was an apparent mistake in the order of the AO in accepting the returned income instead of substituting the same with the assessed income there was an apparent error and the AO was fully justified in rectifying the same. The proposition of assessee that there cannot be addition of the same amount in two different assessment years is correct. Merely, because the AO has retained the addition in AY 2018-19 as per the income retuned by the assessee, it cannot be said that the income cannot be brought to tax in AY 2016-17 especially when the appeal is still pending before the ld.CIT(A).Thus we do not find any infirmity in his order - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.260/Hyd/2022 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2023 - Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri A. Srinivas, CA For the Revenue : Shri V.M.Mahidhar, Sr.AR ORDER PER SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, A.M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the 154 order passed by the AO by observing as under:- 6. In the instant case, notice u/s. 153A was issued to the appellant and no return was filed in response to the same. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the original income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 16.10.2016 at an income of Rs. 29,35,780/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 153A and assessed the income at the income filed originally on 16.10.2016 at Rs. 29,35,780/- and demand of Rs. 66,75,521/- was raised. The appellant did not dispute the demand and did not file an appeal against the said order in response to notice u/s. 156 to pay the demand. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer observed that assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2016-17 on 06.12.2018 in the case of the appellant and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 2,32,42,684/- and demand of Rs. 66,75,521/- was raised. Accordingly, the Assessing Office issued the notice u/s. 154 noting that the income u/s. 143(3) for the same AY was determined at Rs. 2,32,42,684/- whereas the income was determined at Rs. 29,35,780/- in the 153A order and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeals, if any. The appeal for the same year is pending regarding 143(3) and the adjudication of the same would determine the tax liability accordingly. The Assessing Officer has merely followed the last assessed income concept and has only substituted the correct last assessed income as per records without changing the tax liability as per the last assessed income and the same demand was raised u/s. 153A which was not challenged by the appellant In view of the same, the appeal is hereby dismissed and there is no change of opinion but a substitution of the last assessed income as per records and the demand not being a subject matter of 154 proceedings as it is identical to the demand raised in 153A proceedings. In view of the same, the ground no.2 and 3 are dismissed. The ground no.1 and 4 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. It is further to be noted that with regard to assessment order u/s. 143(3), the assessed income was Rs. 2,32,42,684/- and demand of Rs. 66,75,521/- was raised and with regard to assessment order u/s. 153A, the assessed income was rectified vide order u/s. 154 to Rs. 2,32,42,684/- and demand of Rs. 66,75,521/- was raised. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to clause 6 of the same and submitted that the same amount of long-term capital gain was declared out of which an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- was deducted being deposited in the long-term capital gain scheme with Andhra Bank on 21.04.2016. Referring to page 28 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the annexure to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) for the AY 2016-17. Referring to page 29 and 30 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the reply in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.07.2021, according to which there is no difference between the income declared in the original return of income filed u/s. 139 and the return filed u/s. 153A. Referring to page 31 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the revised return filed on 23.10.2018 for AY 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.1,81,12,950/-. Referring to page 32 to 34 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the computation statement and submitted that the assessee has declared long term capital gain of Rs.1,56,71,710/- for AY 2018-19. Referring to page 35 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153A on 22.09.2021 assessing the income originally returned at Rs. 29,35,780/-. Since the AO, instead of assessing the income at Rs. 2,32,42,684/- as per the original order has assessed the income at Rs. 29,35,780/-, he passed a rectification order u/s. 154 rectifying the income at Rs. 2,32,42,684/- as against Rs. 29,35,780/-. We find the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in passing the order u/s. 154, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. 9. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. We find the ld.CIT(A) while upholding the action of the AO held that there is no change of opinion but a substitution of the last assessed income as per record and the demand not being a subject matter of 154 proceedings as it is identical to the demand raised in 153A proceedings. So far as the submission of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the AO has made the addition in AY 2018-19 and therefore, the same could not have been rectified in the 154 proceedings is concerned, the same in our opinion is without any merit. In the original order, the AO had made the addition on the ground that assessee has deposited the money i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN. AS THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN AND THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED WITHIN STIPULATED TIME LIMIT, THE AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN IS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE REVISED RETURN FOR THE AY 2018-19 FILED ON 23.10.2018 AND TAXES PAID ON THE AMOUNT AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THIS YEAR ALONG WITH INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT OF THE SAID TAXES. The statement of the AR shows that the assessee had intentionally concealed the income or made false claim of sec. 54. Vide his submission on 21.08.2018 .i.e just 2 days before filing revised return for the AY 2018-19, the assessee herself stated that the duration of deposit is renewed and has not expired till date. Just to escape from penalty provisions, the assessee had cleverly took a back from her words and filed revised return for the AY 2018-19 disclosing long term capital gains. The offer of Long Term Capital Gains in the revised return was not made voluntarily before detection by the department. Hence, the submission of the AR on 27.11.2018 is not accepted since the claim is a deliberate default not bonafide. Further, it shows the intention of the assessee to conceal the income and if the scrutiny assessment would h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
