TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts Station Pvt. Ltd., holding company, as income of the assessee company. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 42,75,600/- being the compensation received on account of "store deposit" under the Transfer Agreement as business income. The appellant craves leave to amend or withdraw any of the grounds or file additional grounds during the course of hearing. 2. Assessee has also filed an Application for admission of additional ground of Appeal vide its Application dated 05.8.2015 in which the assessee has stated that in view of the settled decisions in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC), (legal ground can be raised for first time in collateral and second round also). The legal ground can be very well raised for first bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground first. 6. The brief facts of the case are that in this case the assessee filed electronic return declaring NIL income on 30.9.2011. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and subsequently selected for scrutiny. In response to the statutory notices Assessee's AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed details and documents called for from time to time. The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of retail activity with respect to branded footwear/ apparels and accessories and leather goods. Necessary details and information as called for have been filed by the assessee. After perusing the same the AO added the various additions and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 6,52,93,559/- b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities below. He stated that AO must tax the right person. Merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the AO is not precluded from ITA 5 No.5368/Del/2012 taxing the right person with respect to that income. He further stated that further, the person lawfully liable to be taxed can claim no immunity because the AO has taxed the said income in the hands of another person contrary to law. He further stated that the wrong tax payer has the remedy of revision u/s. 264 of the I.T. Act. If the assessment of the wrong tax payer has been made u/s. 143(3) or 144, then the wrong tax payer can apply to the CIT or Pr. CIT to revise the assessment, as per law. 11. We have heard the Ld. DR as well as Ld. Counsel of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, in our considered opinion, the addition made by the AO is totally illegal and accordingly the assessment order is illegal to this extent. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6 crore in the hands of the assessee. We find that in the case of Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 0291 (SC) it has been held as under:- "8.... It is a fundamental rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice ......" 11.1 In the case of CIT vs. R. Dalmia, (1982) 135 ITR 0346 (Del), it has been held that "Dividend-Chargeability-Dividend returned by assessee in asst. yr. 1959-60, assessment made and attained finality, same cannot be taxed again in asst. yr. 1960-61" 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lete the addition of Rs. 6 Crores (Rupees Six Crores) and decide the additional ground and ground no. 2 raised in the assessee's Appeal in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 12. With regard to ground no. 3 relating to sustaining the addition of Rs. 42,75,600/- being the compensation received on account of "store deposit" under the Transfer Agreement as business income is concerned, we find that this addition is of Rs. 42,75,600/- on account of advance given for hiring the premises for opening a new store in the shopping mall named Emporio, DLF Place, Vasant Kunj New Delhi. The amount of Rs. 42,75,600/- was paid by the holding company directly to the landlord, i.e., M/s Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd on behal....