9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent assessee company and addition was also made in hands of the Director in his individual capacity and tax was also paid by the Director. Tribunal has considered this aspect while allowing the appeal of the assessee challenging the order u/s 263 of the Act. It also appears from the record that the contention of the assessee company that amount of Rs. 15.50 lakh belonged to it was not accepted by the Income Tax department and therefore, the entry passed by the assessee company in the books of accounts reducing the cash balance was reversed because of the assessment order passed in the case of the Director. Tribunal therefore, was justified in holding that order the passed by the AO was not at all prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned should have been added under section 68 of the Act and charged by applying tax rate under section 115BBE of the Act. 5. However, it was the case of the assessee that during the course of search, cash of Rs. 15.50 lakh was seized by searched party from the residence of Director of assessee and the assessee company had reduced the cash balance by passing an accounting entry by crediting Rs. 15.50 lakh and debiting Rs. 15.50 lakh to the cash seized in search. However, the department treated the seized cash of Rs. 15.50 lakh as belonging to Shri Kamal J. Shah, Director of the assessee company and made addition thereof. Shri Kamal J. Shah accepted the addition and paid the tax accordingly. On adding such amount in the hands of the Director i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error as there is mistake apparent on record to the effect that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax while passing order under section 263 of the Act has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no cash balance of Rs. 15.50 lakhs available with respondent assessee as the said amount was seized by the Income Tax department in the year 2013 and was never returned. It was therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent assessee challenging the order under section 263 of the Act without considering such aspect. It was further submitted that the Tribunal while dismissing the Misc. Application for rectification of such mistake appa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not at all prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the impugned amount of Rs. 15.50 lacs were already taxed in the hands of individual Director. This fact was initially accepted by the assessing officer while passing the assessment order, though, the assessment order was revised by Id PCIT. The revenue in the present application is seeking revive of the order, which is not permissible under section 254 (2). So far as specific plea raised in the present application that there is no clear finding about the availability of cash in the hand of assess company is concerned, we find that once we impliedly accepted the plea of the assessee that same amount cannot be taxed twice. And that ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
