Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2019 (5) TMI 1381 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - time barring order - passing the order in 6 months - HELD THAT - The provision (s. 154(8)) is not cast in negative terms which is indicative and also one of the tests as pointed out by the Hon ble Court 2011 (4) TMI 511 - PATNA HIGH COURT of the provision being directory. Contrast this with s.154(7) cast in negative terms which is mandatory. Rather a reading of section 154(8) makes it abundantly clear that an order u/s. 154(1) r/w s. 154(4) is to be a result as afore-stated of a conscious decision. This is even otherwise apparent as the order is appellable and in fact being an order covered u/s. 154(1)(a) itself subject to rectification as where it bears a mistake apparent from record. The said Grounds would not hold. Rectification u/s 154 - the circle rate (of land) could not be applied as it is a case of a composite sale - HELD THAT - The only course therefore available where the said adjudication is considered erroneous is for the effected party to take the matter in further appeal. True the ld. CIT(A) has in arriving at his decision regarded the land sold as not appurtenant to the Feed Mill while the assessee states of the same being a part and parcel of the factory building sold . Further it may also be that the ld. CIT(A) considers so as land if regarded as part of the units sold would be subject to provision of section 50B in which case no indexation benefit would be available to the assessee and two only the net worth as certified by an Accountant of the relevant undertaking (i.e. excluding the plant and machinery of the other unit) allowed as a deduction. It is for these reasons that the ld. CIT(A) states it to raise a contentious issue and in any case covered u/s. 154(1A). Rectification u/s 154 - the correct commercial rate to be applied is Rs. 15, 000 per marla as the Collector had himself applied the said rate - HELD THAT - The assessee s letter dated 09.01.2018 is to that extent a separate application since undisposed. It is open for the assessee to where so advised seek disposal of the said application dated 09.01.2018. I say so i.e. where so advised as as it appears it may be of no consequence. The value (out of the total consideration of Rs. 280 lacs) imputed to the other assets is the balance after deducting that ascribed to land. As such a change in the said rate impacting land value (cost) would imply a corresponding increase in STCG; in fact to exactly the same extent. How one wonders would it assist the assessee in any manner? Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - tax sought to be evaded - HELD THAT - It is precisely this that would cause the assessee s appeal agitating the levy of penalty as being liable to be accepted at the threshold. The primary (and the sole) reason for the assessment of the capital gain in a sum higher than that returned by the assessee (by Rs. 25.90 lacs) on which the impugned penalty is levied is as a narration of the fore-going facts makes it clear on account of non-allowance of the WDV of the entire block of asset i.e. of both the units i.e. as against only of the Feed Mill Unit. The difference between the two sets of the WDV allowed by the ld. CIT(A) is Rs. 26.06 lacs (Rs. 71 lacs Rs. 44.94 lacs) i.e. more than the difference for which the penalty is being levied and which is due to the allowance of (indexed) cost of land (at Rs. 0.16 lacs). Therefore even as the asessee has not furnished any explanation during the penalty proceedings nor indeed in the appellate proceedings there is no tax sought to be evaded in terms of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) on which penalty could be levied. The assessee accordingly succeeds.
|