TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse of assessment proceedings, the petitioner had stated that she is consistently reporting her income/loss on sale of shares under the head Capital Gains. The assessment was completed by order dated 15.09.2016 under Section 143(3) r/w 147 of the IT Act. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer confirmed the assessment by making an addition of a sum of Rs. 25,05,304/- as Short Term Capital Gains. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has accepted that the income has to be assessed under the head Capital Gains and consequently, made the addition as stated supra. The petitioner filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the same was dismissed on 22.06.2017. The petitioner preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the erroneous addition of Rs. 25,05,304/- as Short Term Capital Gains. The entire issue in the appeal was only in relation to the sole addition of Rs. 25,05,304/- as Short Term Capital Gains and no other dispute in respect of characterization of the heads of income of the petitioner. The Tribunal, by order dated 10.10.2017, remanded the sole issue in appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, as it has found that there was violation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, the client mode modified in the case of the petitioner are that of one Shri.Lalchand Misirimal (PAN:AACPL4767B) and Ms.Padmaja V.Ramana (AFTPR9690F), both are not fitting to the situations as explained in detail in the impugned order. It was to disallow such an artificial loss created in the books, the petitioner's case was reopened. The allegations that the assessment was made in violation of principles of natural justice and that the Tribunal has remanded the issue in appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication for the limited purpose of verifying the client code modifications are wrong and denied. The Tribunal has remanded the issue, as the petitioner had not provided all the details at the time of assessment and also directed the respondent to verify the client code modifications with the broker. The assessment was completed by taking into consideration the material already submitted by the petitioner in the reassessment proceedings. No new material was relied upon. Since the Tribunal has remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after verification of the details of the client code modifications, it is not correct to state that it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., S.P.Kochhar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun, (ii) (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC), Mcorp Global P. Ltd., Vs. CIT. (iii) (2008) 302 ITR 126 (Guj), Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd., Vs. CIT. (iv) An unreported judgement in T.C.(Appeal) No.885 of 2008 dated 04.04.2018, M/s.Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer. (v) (1995) 213 ITR 502 (Mad), Raja DV Seetharamaya Vs. WTO. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted as follows: The Assessing Officer has not exceeded the scope of the remand. All the three issues are interlinked with each other and therefore, the petitioner is not justified in contending otherwise. The Tribunal has remitted the matter with specific directions for re-adjudication, after verifying the details of the client code modifications, also by granting liberty to the Assessing Officer to have the verification of the share transactions with the stock brokers. Therefore, the issues, which are dealt with by the Assessing Officer, interlinked with each other, are in relation to the factual dispute, which have to be gone into and decided only by the next fact finding authority viz., the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from Short Term Capital Gains u/s 111A as admitted Rs. 59,56,614 Income from Short Term Capital Gains - other than u/s 111A as discussed in para 8 above Rs. 25,05,304 Income from other sources - as admitted Rs. 4,107 Gross Total Income Rs. 86,22,787 Less : B/F Losses of A.Ys 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Rs. 56,96,224 Rs. 29,26,563 Less : Chapter VIA deduction Rs. 54,204 Total Income Rs. 28,72,359 or Rs. 28,72,360 12. Perusal of the above computation would show that the Assessing Officer has made only the addition to the tune of Rs. 25,05,304/- as an income from Short Term Capital Gains other than the income from Short Term Capital Gains under Section 111A. Therefore, it is evident that in respect of the other heads viz., Income from House Property, income from Short Term Capital Gains under Section 111A, income from other sources, the Brought/forward losses for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 as admitted by the Assessee in her return were accepted by the Assessing Officer as such. In other words, after reopening, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w 147 of the IT Act, only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for re-adjudication in respect of all the issues that were considered by the Assessing Officer under various heads while passing the order of assessment. 14. After remand, the Assessing Officer in this case, gone into the issue with regard to the Short Term Capital Gains under Section 111A to the tune of Rs. 59,56,614/- as well and given a finding that the Assessee has included profit/loss earned from trading in both the Equity and Derivatives segment under the head Short Term Capital Gains. Likewise, in respect of Set off of Capital Losses, the Assessing Officer has found that the income tax does not allow loss under the head Capital Gains to be set off against any income from other heads and that this can be only set off within the Capital Gains head. He also found that Long Term Capital Loss can be set off only against Long Term Capital Gains and Short Term Capital losses are allowed to be set off against both Long Term Gains and Short Term Gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer by observing so, has also taken the issue with regard to the brought/forward losses to the tune of Rs. 56,96,224/- originally accepted by him at the time of original assessment, and reconsidered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal before the Appellate Authority. (c) In T.C.(Appeal) No.885 of 2008 dated 04.04.2018, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Tribunal has no power under the Income Tax Act to enhance the assessment in an appeal. Equally, it cannot be done on an order of remand being passed by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer. (d) In (1995) 213 ITR 502 (Mad), Raja DV Seetharamaya Vs. WTO, similar view was expressed by this Court that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, after remand, would depend upon the terms of the remand order and he would not be entitled to go beyond them. The relevant observation made therein is extracted hereunder: "If the facts of these petitions are considered in the context of the aforesaid principle of law, it would be clear that the Assessing Officer has gone beyond the remand order and has treated the whole matter as at large before him. This was not intended by the remand order passed by the Appellate Authority. He has thus reopened even the matter in relation to the years where the assessment orders had not been challenged in appeal and had become final. There is, therefore, a patent illegality in the impugned notices as als....