TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer to make additions of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of total sums received from investment made in property situated at Mumbai. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Baroda ought to have appreciated that the overall additions on account of the total amount received have already been made in one year or the other and that there is no loss of revenue. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Baroda ought to have appreciated that the additions as stated hereinabove in the year under consideration shall result in excess addition of income and double taxation of same income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Baroda erred in law and on facts has set aside the assessment order passed on 29-12-2016 under section 143(3) of the I T Act. 4.0 The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are stated in brief. The assessee before us is an individual and filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short "the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct on 27.08.2018 and was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the same, assessee vide letter dated 06.09.2018, furnished written submission. The relevant portion of the written submission dated 06.09.2018 is reproduced below: "At the outset, it is submitted that the impugned notice under section 263 of the Act is void ab-initio inasmuch as the same is issued without verification of the records. This is because, it was clearly and categorically stated at the time of survey that I had invested Rs.1.20 crores in cash jointly with my three brothers in one property situated at Mumbai during the Financial Years relevant to the Asst. years 2000-01 to 2005-06. The Said investment was received back with a total amount of Rs.1,27,00,000/- in cash only in the Financial Years relevant to the Asst, Year 2010-11 and Asst. Year 2013-14 as under: Asst Year 2010-11 -Rs. 34,50,000/- (My share Rs. 7,60,630/-) Asst. Year 2013-14 -Rs.92,50,000/- (My share Rs.20,39,370/-) Thus, during the year under consideration viz. Asst. Year 2013-14, total money received was Rs.92,50,000/-, out of which my share was Rs.20,39,370/-. The balance amount received was on account of my brothers' share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28,00,000 Thus, additions on account of my share in the property income aggregating to Rs.28,00,000/- were made in the above Asst. Years. Now the Assessing Officer has submitted a report on my submission stating that the assessee has received money as under: Asst. Year My share Amt.(Rs.) 2010-11 19,00,000 2013-14 - - 2014-15 9,00,000 2015-16 - - Thus, it can be seen that the total amount received remains the same. It is only that the date of receipts were wrongly recorded. Hence, I re-iterated that no other amount/money was received by me. It is submitted that on an overall basis there was no under assessment of income. The entire income declared at the time of survey has been assessed and taxed in one year or the other. Thus, no loss of revenue or prejudices to the interests of the revenue have been caused. The revenue can argue that each year is a separate year and the correct income has to be assessed for each year but then taking recourse to section 263 of the Act is totally against the principles of law." 9. However, ld PCIT has rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that assessee received a total amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the aforementio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. Shri Mehul K Patel, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that Ld.PCIT has invoked his jurisdiction only to tax Rs.9,00,000/- which according to ld PCIT pertains to the assessment year 2014-15, under consideration but however as per assessee, the said amount pertains to previous assessment year i.e. 2013-14. The ld Counsel explained the Bench that said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has already been taxed in assessment year 2013-14, therefore, it should not be taxed again in assessment year 2014-15. 14. Ld.Counsel for the assessee again submitted that for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the income tax rate for individual is same, that is, there is no change in income tax rate, hence there is no loss to the Revenue. Therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue, whether Rs.9,00,000/- is taxed in the current assessment year 2014-15 or in previous assessment year 2013-14, hence it is revenue neutral and there is no impact on the revenue as the income tax rate for both the assessment years were same. Hence, the order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as there is no loss to the revenue. 15. Without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- remains same, as follows: Asst. Year Share Amt.(Rs.) 2010-11 19,00,000 2013-14 - - 2014-15 9,00,000 Total 28,00,000 From the above facts, we notice that total taxable amount remains same. We also note that tax rate for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 are same therefore ld Counsel contended that there is no loss to Revenue, whether Rs.9,00,000/- is taxed in assessment year 2013-14 or assessment year 2014-15. 18. In order to invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, two conditions should be satisfied viz: (1) order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and (2) prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We note that Assessing Officer taxed the disputed amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in assessment year 2013-14 instead of assessment year 2014-15, therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. However, we note that since in both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 tax rate was same, therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, (as there is no loss to the Revenue). Hence, one of the conditions (prejudicial to the interest of Revenue) is not getting satisfied in the assessee....