Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1311 - AT - Income TaxRevision of order u/s 143(3) and also u/s 154 by a combined order u/s 263 - Held that:- The objection of the assessee, that the CIT ought to have passed independent and separate orders, is not sustainable because the order u/s 154 is only a rectification of a mistake apparent from record of an order passed under the provisions of the I.T. Act and therefore, forms part of the order which is rectified. The order u/s 154 has no independent existence and is part of assessment proceedings itself as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Sankappa vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in (1967 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court). Therefore, the CIT was within his powers u/s 263 to revise the order u/s 143(3) and also the order u/s 154 by way of a combined and a single order. Entitlement of the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA - Held that:- The allowability of the deduction u/s 80IA in respect of receipts from the sale of carbon credits is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of My Home Power Ltd vs. Dy.CIT [2012 (11) TMI 288 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held that it is not a revenue receipt but is a capital receipt. Thus, while holding that such receipt is not eligible for a deduction u/s 80IA, the Tribunal has also held that the addition cannot be made as it is a capital receipt. Therefore, assessment order is clearly erroneous in so far as allowing the deduction u/s 80IA is concerned. But since it is held to be a capital receipt and cannot be brought to tax, it is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Unaccounted income from the sale of remnant seed - Held that:- From the assessment order for the A.Y 2006-07, it is seen that the assessee has admitted a sum of ₹ 2,77,52,000 towards undisclosed cash payment in the return of income filed by it and the AO has made a further addition of ₹ 2,92,60,012 as unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the I.T Act. As seen from the table reproduced above from the CIT’s order u/s 263, the unaccounted income from remnant seed for the A.Y 2006-07 is ₹ 2,65,61,097, is included in the returned income of the assessee and further the addition of ₹ 2,07,32,443 is also made in the A.Y 2006-07. Therefore, if the same is brought to tax in the A.Y 2007-08 also because the assessee has offered it, it is clearly a double taxation of the same amount. We have gone through the annual report of the assessee and find that this sum of ₹ 2.07 crores is included in the returned income of the assessee for the A.Y 2007-08. The AO has considered the issue at length and thereafter accepted the assessee’s contention while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
|