TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 Crores out of which the petitioners received a sum of Rs.3,12,50,000/- each. All the four brothers filed their returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, and thereafter the assessment were sought to be reopened for each of the four brothers. 3. As far as one of the brothers namely G.Chinnadurai, a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.28409 of 2015 vide order dated 29.08.2016 in the case of G.Chinnadurai Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income-Tax Department Non-Corporate Ward 13(2), Chennai reported in [2016] 74 taxmann.com 227. 4. Further the appeal before the Division Bench by the Income Tax Department was also dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2017 in W.A.No.1570 of 2016. As far as the other three brothers which include, the two petitioners herein, notice under Section 148 was issued to them which culminated in separate Assessment Orders dated 27.12.2018. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, each of the three brothers (other than G.Chinnadurai), preferred Appeal before the CIT Appeals under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. During the pendency of the appeal one of the petitioners' brother G.Vijaykumar, rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ights under the appeal as also the case for being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 cannot be compromised. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the following cases:- "1.Radha Krishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [2021] SCC Online SC 334; 2.Pannalal Binjraj Vs. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC) and 3.Taiyabji Lukmanji Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1981] 131 ITR 643 (Guj)." 12. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others has observed that the rule of law in a constitutional frame work is fulfilled when law is substantively fair, procedurally fair and applied in a fair manner. Each of these three components will need to be addressed in the course of interpreting the tax statute in the aforesaid case. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention in another passage from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pannalal Binjraj Vs. Union of India ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 16. The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioners were not the partners in the firm named M/s.Karpagam Studios. The petitioners father and few others were the partners. It is therefore submitted that the proceeds from the sale were distributed among the 4 brothers. It is submitted that income from the sale cannot be treated as a long term capital gain and ought to have been assessed as income from other sources. It is therefore submitted that the returns filed by the petitioner under Section 139 of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 was incorrect there is no question of the petitioners or their brothers claiming legitimately the benefit of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the respondents were well within their rights to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act as the Assessment orders passed. As far as the petitioners and also their brothers on 27.02.2018 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 17. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot have the case either settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme or can scuttle the proceedings initiated under impugned notices und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 which defines the expression disputed tax as in section 2(j) which reads as under :- " (B) in a case where an order in an appeal or in writ petition has been passed by the Appellate Forum on or before the specified date, and the time for filing appeal or special leave petition against such order has not expired as on that date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant after giving effect to the order so passed". 23. It is submitted that the assessment which is sought to be revised under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made by the Assessing Officer without making proper enquiries or verifications. It is submitted that it should have been treated under the head "income from other sources". The respondents have considered the Assessment Order dated 27.12.2018 to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore notice issued under Section 263 was within the jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 24. The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that both under Sections 148 and 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 an issue which is not the subject matter of such proceeding can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The petitioners have each received approximately a sum of Rs.3.12 crores as their share. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and have claimed 54(F) exemption and have invested the amount received by them in the purchase of residential houses. 30. After the returns were filed, an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also issued to them. Thereafter, the assessment was sought to be reopened under Section 147 by issuing a notice dated 05.09.2017 in respect of the petitioners under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 31. The reasons for reopening of the assessments of the respective petitioners reads as under: Circular in W.P.No.6374 of 2021 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 17(4) Room No.518, 5th Floor, BSNL Tower-I Building, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006. 004-28295279, Email: [email protected] NCW. 17(4) /AGJPR9078A/2018-19 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 32. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that the petitioners did not admit the capital gains in their returns filed by them. Eventually, the aforesaid proceedings culminated in an order dated 27.12.2018 under Section 143(3) read with 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 33. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have also filed appeal before the CIT Appeals. It is during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the CIT Appeals under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 34. The Finance Minister in the parliament had introduced the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The respective petitioners opted to settle the dispute with Income Tax Department by filing declarations in Form 1 and 2 on 31.08.2020. 35. The Designated Authority namely, the third respondent has also issued Form 3 on 10.12.2020 to the respective petitioners. On 09.02.2021, the respective petitioners have also received an intimation regarding the payments made by the petitioners pursuant to Form 3 dated 10.12.2020. Thereafter, the Impugned Notice for revising the assessment orders dated 27.12.2018 have been issued to the respective petitioners. 36. In the aforesaid notice, it has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant in accordance with such order; (D) in a case where objection filed by the appellant is pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Income-tax Act as on the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant if the Dispute Resolution Panel was to confirm the variation proposed in the draft order; (E) in a case where Dispute Resolution Panel has issued any direction under sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer has not passed the order under sub-section (13) of that section on or before the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant as per the assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (13) thereof; (F) in a case where an application for revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act is pending as on the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant if such application for revision was not to be accepted: Provided that in a case where Commissioner (Appeals) has issued notice of enhancement under section 251 of the Income-tax Act on or before the specified date, the disputed tax shall be increased by the amount ....