2025 (11) TMI 1856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. The Petitioner had undertaken a housing project which was approved by the local authority for the purpose of claiming deduction of 100% of the profit from the said housing project under Section 80-IB(10) of the IT Act in the year 2006. The said housing project undertaken by the Petitioner was completed in March 2012. The Petitioner has been claiming deduction of 100% of its profit from the housing project from A.Y. 2010-11 under Section 80-IB(10) of the IT Act. "Chapter XII-BA - Special Provisions Relating To Certain Persons Other Than A Company" was introduced in the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2011, w.e.f. 1st April 2012, i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 in respect of Limited Liability Partnerships. Subsequently, these provisions of Section 115JC were also made applicable to other categories of persons (other than a company) with effect from 01.04.2013, i.e. A.Y. 2013-14. 4. The relevant Assessment Year under consideration is Assessment Year 2020-21, for which the Petitioner had filed the report of a Chartered Accountant in Form 10CCB in support of its c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in the case of S.K. Ventures vs. ITO [order dated 05.03.2019 bearing ITA No.: 1248/Mum/2018] against which the Revenue had filed an appeal before this Court and was pending for disposal at that point of time. 9. Respondent No. 2 then afforded a hearing to the Petitioner, and requisite explanations/documents were submitted. Respondent No. 2, then passed its impugned order under Section 264 on 28.03.2023, rejecting the Revision Application of the Petitioner on the ground that the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of S.K. Ventures vs. ITO (supra) was not acceptable to the revenue department. It was also stated by Respondent No. 2 that no relief can be granted under Section 264 in respect of claims not made in the return. 10. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Jain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the Revision Application of the Petitioner filed under Section 264 was wrongfully rejected by the Respondent No. 2. Placing reliance on the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of S.K. Ventures vs. ITO (supra), he contended that the provisions of Section 115JC were inapplica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns of Section 264(3) permits the assessee to file a Revision Application within a period of one year from the date on which the order sought to be revised was passed. Hence, the revision petition filed by the Petitioner was within the statutory limitation period. He further submitted that due to auto-population of data in the ITR utility, the tax under Section 115JC was levied automatically, and there was no facility to correct the said auto-populated and unamendable data. He also submitted that even though the calculation pursuant to Section 115JC forms part of the Return of Income, still there is no estoppel against law. He states that if a person makes some assertion about a provision of law, either under circumstantial pressure or under a wrong understanding of the law or under any other situation whatsoever, he can not be stopped from later relying on the correct proposition of law. The doctrine of estoppel prevents a person from adopting a different stand which is contrary to his earlier stand. However, the same does not act as a bar in taxing statutes, and a person is entitled to take a different/new stand which is in consonance with the Act/law. If the same is not permitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Petitioner to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [WP NO.: 3290/2024; order dated 05.08.2024], is well founded. In this decision it was held as under: "11. This apart we also find that quite absurd and unwarranted statements are made by the JAO in paragraph 12 of the reply affidavit, when he says that the department does not agree with the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra). It may be that the Revenue has not "accepted" the judgment but it would not mean that till the same is set aside in a manner known to law, the same has lost its binding force as the deponent intends to say in paragraph 12, so as to proceed as if there is no such decision of this Court, and much less a binding decision. It is noteworthy that this very approach of treating judgments being "not acceptable" is in the teeth of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court deprecating such conduct of the authorities..." (emphasis supplied) 17. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee ltd. vs. The Excise And Taxation Officer [Civil Appeal no.5393 OF 2010; order dated 01.02.2023] inter-alia held as under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tes that the doctrine of binding judicial precedents would apply only when the decision of the superior authority/Court is rendered in respect of the same party. It is the claim of Respondent No. 2 that because the Petitioner was not a party to the decision in the case of S.K. Ventures vs. ITO (supra), the ratio laid down therein would not apply to the Petitioner. We are of the view that if in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the case of the Petitioner is in consonance with the facts in the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Tribunal, then it ought to be followed as a matter of judicial discipline. 20. With regard to the argument pleaded by the Respondents that the revision under Section 264 cannot be allowed for claims which are not made in the Return of Income or with respect to claims which are accepted in the return of income, we are not inclined to endorse this contention. Firstly, in the return of income, the computation of AMT was automatic and unamendable. Hence, it cannot be said that Petitioner had accepted the tax computed under Section 115JC. It was to challenge the automatic levy of tax under Section 115JC that the Petitioner filed the Revisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taxmann.com 192/261 Taxman 152 wherein the Division Bench considered an identical question as to whether the revisional authority was justified in rejecting the revision application solely on the ground that the applicant had not claimed the benefit in the original return. After adverting to the previous pronouncements of various High Courts, this concurred with the view that Section 264 does not limit the power to correct errors committed by the sub-ordinate authorities and could even be exercised where errors are committed by the assessee and there is nothing in Section 264 which places any restriction on the Commissioner's revisional power to give relief to the assessee in a case where assessee detects mistakes after the assessment is completed." (emphasis supplied) 24. Hence, we are of the view that provisions of Section 264 would also cover within its ambit a claim which is not made in the Return of Income. 25. Further, in the present case, the subject matter of the Revision Application is the intimation issued under Section 143(1) dated 30.12.2021, wherein the tax pursuant to Section 115JC was sustained. 26. Mr. Jain has brought to our notice a decision....