2024 (6) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2018-19. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that although several grounds has been raised, she seeks to press Ground No.1.3 only and other grounds may be ignored for the purposes of adjudication. 3. In the light of the submissions made, other grounds are dismissed as not pressed and Ground No.1.3 is reproduced hereunder: "1.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) ought to grant the claim of Excise duty refund is non-taxable under the normal provisions of the Act." 4. With reference to Ground No.1.3 of the appeal, the ld. counsel pointed out that the issue concerns non taxabil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue income by the assessee and incorrectly offered to taxation as chargeable income while filing the return of income. The assessee contends that such Excise Duty subsidy is essentially capital in nature and thus not liable to taxation although wrongly offered as taxable income while filing the return of income. The assessee has raised such claim before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dealt with the issue as under: "4.4.3 I have considered facts of the case as well as written submission of the appellant. The appellant itself offered excise duty received of Rs. 7,44,19,720/- in its return of income. Even during assessment proceedings, no claim was made before Assessing Officer that the amount is not taxable. In view of these facts, this g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shelly Products (2003) 261 ITR 367 (SC), S. R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj), Ester Industries vs. CIT (2009) 185 TAXMAN 266 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee from claiming an expense or disputin....