Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1025 - AT - Income TaxReceipts on sale of Renewable Energy Certificates [REC] & ESCERTS - capital receipt or revenue receipt - DR placed that the claim of the assessee as not related to carbon credit, so, it is not covered u/s 115BBG or as exempted income - DR argued that the revenue had properly taken it as an income from business - HELD THAT:- The assessee claimed the transfer value of REC/ESCs amounting to Rs. 17,77,26000/-in return under section 1115BBG and paid tax. During the time of assessment, the assessee amended the claim and treated the income as capital receipt. As relied on the orders My Home Power Ltd, [2014 (6) TMI 82 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. [1965 (4) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] the income is offshoot from environmental concern not from offshoot of business concern. The nature is fully related to environmental health. We find that said income is capital in nature and not liable to tax under business income. Amendment of claim in assessment stage - The transfer value of REC/ESCs was duly claimed as capital receipt in assessment stage. As relying on case of Goetze (India) Ltd [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] & case of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd [2019 (7) TMI 878 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] Both the orders have not impinged the power of ITAT u/s 254 to allow the claim duly amended by assessee after filing the return. The revised claim made by the assessee during the time of assessment is duly accepted. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the claim of assessee. Commission paid by the assessee was treated as bogus and added back u/s 69C - DRP issued the SCN for enhancement, through e-mail, for the first time on 27th June, 2022 and the assessee was allowed time up to 28.06.2022 to respond to the same and the order making enhancement was passed by the DRP on 29.06.2022 - grievance of the assessee is that the ld. DRP has acted beyond jurisdiction u/s 144C(8) - HELD THAT:- After submission of requisite documents as evidence of transaction, the ld. DRP had not considered the same. Considering the submission of assessee the Tax Invoice, transaction through bank account and the TDS certificate are duly placed before the bench as proof of transaction with M/s Zylo International. DR has not made any objection about the assessee’s submission and not able to submit any contrary judgment against the assessee. It is pertinent to mention the revenue was not able to submit any transaction with M/s Rolmex International Prop. Jaswant Singh with the assessee. The addition cannot be on basis of surmises and conjectures. See Umacharan Shaw & Bros [1959 (5) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]. In our considered view the addition amount is quashed.
|