Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 374 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Settlement commission order - HELD THAT:- There is no infirmity in the application for settlement commission made by the assessee before the ITSC on 5 December 2019 and therefore the learned CIT cannot have assumed the jurisdiction u/s 263 - The settlement commission has also passed an order admitting the application of the assessee u/s 245D (1) on 18 December 2019. The settlement commission assumes exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of an income tax authority in relation to the case from the date on which the application is made and until an order u/s 245D (4) of the act is passed. In the present case, therefore from 5 December 2019 till the order u/s 245D (4) of the act is passed the only authority which can exercise the jurisdiction for the income tax matters is only settlement commission. This issue was also raised before the settlement commission which dealt with it in the similar manner. Therefore also we are of the view that assumption of jurisdiction by the learned and CIT in passing an order u/s 263 of the act on 30th of March 2020 is not proper. Revisionary proceedings is assessment of the short-term capital gain earned by the assessee on sale of shares - This issue has already been considered by the settlement commission which has been offered by the assessee as an additional income on which tax at appropriate rate is payable. Therefore even otherwise there is no prejudice caused to the revenue because assessee has already offered the above income as additional income before the settlement commission. Only grievance of the revenue to say that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason that assessee has been saved from penalty and prosecution on the issue. We have carefully considered the argument of the learned CIT DR on this aspect and find that when a specific authority is given to the settlement commission u/s 245H of the act to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. Therefore, when a settlement commission is given a special power to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty Under the income tax act itself, it cannot be said that assumption of jurisdiction by the settlement commission in accordance with the law wherein there are chances for waiver of penalty as well as immunity from prosecution is an order which will constitute prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. More so, there is no error in such order, which is yet to be passed. The assessee may get and immunity from prosecution and penalty order or it may not get. Therefore such situation cannot be preempted to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the act. We quash the order passed by the learned CIT u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
|