9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1477 - HC - Income TaxRevision of other orders u/s 264 - rejection of applications being time barred - income derived from investment of shares though was claimed in the income tax return as capital gain but the Department treated it as a business sale HELD THAT - As an abundant precaution applications Exts. P6 and P7 were submitted to the Commissioner for rectification/revision of the orders for assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 to treat the same as has been done for the assessment year 2006-07. Though the aforesaid applications were submitted on 12.6.2014 it was beyond the period of one year as provided under the statute. Such delay could not have been condoned as per the plain and simple reading of Section 264 extracted above. Commissioner in my view rightly rejected the applications being time barred though on other point the reasoning given is not sustainable in view of the ratio deciendi culled out in the judgment in Vijaya Gupta 2016 (3) TMI 977 - DELHI HIGH COURT regarding the powers of Commissioner. The explanation given by the petitioner for condoning the delay was also not found satisfactory as it was a subsequent cause of action. Since delay has not been explained in a proper and reasonable manner dismissal of the applications for revision of orders for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 vide orders dated 20.11.2015 Exts. P10 and P11 respectively are perfectly correct and do not call for interference. Such an attempt was an afterthought realising the fact that for assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 return of income/gains arising from investment in equity shares was capital loss - Writ petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment concerns the rejection of applications filed u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for revising returns for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10. The main issue revolves around the classification of gains from investments in shares as either 'business income' or 'capital gain/loss', and the timeliness of the applications for revision. Issue 1: Classification of Gains from Investments: The petitioner, a SEBI registered Portfolio Manager, filed returns showing gains from investments in shares as 'capital gains'. However, the Department assessed these gains as 'business income' for certain years. The petitioner sought revision of assessments for the years 2007-08 and 2009-10 to rectify this classification. Details for Issue 1: - The petitioner's returns initially showed gains from shares as 'capital gains', which were accepted by the Department. - For some years, the Department assessed these gains as 'business income', leading to disputes and appeals. - Realizing the correct classification, the petitioner filed applications for revision for the years 2007-08 and 2009-10 under Section 264 of the Act. - The Commissioner rejected these applications as time-barred, as they were submitted beyond the one-year limit prescribed by the Act. Issue 2: Timeliness of Revision Applications: The crux of the matter lies in the timeliness of the applications for revision filed by the petitioner u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner rejected the applications for revising the assessments for the years 2007-08 and 2009-10 on the grounds of being time-barred. Details for Issue 2: - The Commissioner rejected the revision applications as they were submitted after the one-year period specified in the Act. - The petitioner argued that the law regarding revision of orders was different at the time of application submission. - The petitioner's explanation for the delay in filing the applications was deemed unsatisfactory by the Commissioner. - The rejection of the applications for revision for the years 2007-08 and 2009-10 was upheld due to being time-barred, despite the petitioner's contentions. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of applications for revision of assessments for the years 2007-08 and 2009-10. The Court found the applications to be time-barred as per the provisions of Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite arguments regarding the correct classification of gains from investments, the Court upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the delay in filing the revision applications could not be condoned.
|
