TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Returned Income Assessment dt. Assessed Income 2006-07 31/7/2006 Rs. 8, 45, 960/- 26/03/2014 Rs. 14. 08 crores 2007-08 30/07/2007 Rs. 5, 19, 260/- 26/03/2014 Rs. 9. 00 crores ITA/2343/Mum/2016, AY, 2006-07: 2. The effective ground of appeal is about deletion of addition made by the AO as deemed income. Original assessment, in the case of the assessee, was made on 12. 12. 2008, u/s. 143(3)of the Act, determining her income at Rs. 8. 45 lakhs. Later on, a notice was issue u/s. 147 of the to assess the escaped income. As per the information received from the French Authorities under Indo- French DTAA, Sisal Holdings Limited(A/c No. 5091364910)was having a bank account. with HSBC Private Bank (UK)Ltd. Geneva.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 31. 03. 2013, the AO had made a reference to the same bank account and had added Rs. 1. 40 crores as peak credit of the account to his total income for the AY. 2006-07, that the income returned by Late BHK in respect of the said account was accepted by the department, that assessment in his case was made on substantive basis, that the same income was assessed again in case of the assessee on substantive basis, that it was a case of double taxation of same income, that the same was not permissible as per the provisions of the Act, that the AO had not disputed the fact that disputed amount was assessed in the hands of the husband of the assessee, that there was justification in assessing Rs. 1. 40 crores in the hands of the assessee under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....protective basis. In short, there are two substantive assessment orders for the same income and for the same AY. We are of the opinion that the basic principles of tax jurisprudence stipulate that there should not be double taxation and that there should not be double deduction. No authority is required to support the said well reconginsed fundamental principle. If the Sovereign has right to tax the income of Subjects, the tax payers have right that income earned by them is taxed once only and in one AY. only. In the case before us, the Departmental authorities, in their wisdom, decided that peak credit appearing in the Sisal account was to be assessed in the hands of Late BHK, that income was not jointly assessed in the hands of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth the sides. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: "A comparison of the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax Act, 1961, immediately brings out the difference between them. Section 3 of the 1922 Act provided that in respect of the total income of a firm or an association of persons, the income-tax shall be charged either on the firm or the association of persons or on the partners of the firm or the members of the association of persons individually. It is evident that this option was to be exercised by the Income-tax Officer keeping in view the interests of the Revenue. In such a situation, it was generally held that once the Income-tax Officer opted for one course, the other course was barred to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome-tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. The expression "wrong person" is obviously used as the opposite of the expression "right person". Merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the Assessing Officer is not precluded from taxing the right person with respect to that income. " 5. 2. As stated ealier, the AO has not proved as to how that taxation of Sisal account income in the hands of husband of the assessee was assessment of a wrong person. So, the case cited by the DR rather helps the....