Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 734 - HC - Income TaxRevision of other orders u/s 264 in favor of assessee - Seraulim property was not at all reflected in the returns for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. - HELD THAT:- According to us, although, it is true that neither the books of account/ledgers nor the balance sheets were produced by the petitioners along with their applications under Section 264 of the I.T. Act or during the course of personal hearing thereon, the interests of justice would require that the petitioners are given an opportunity to produce this material before respondent no.1. The impugned order, makes reference to certain reasons or circumstances, which, may not be entirely relevant. In any case, the impact of such irrelevant circumstances on the ultimate decision is also not quite clear from perusal of the impugned order. The fact that for A.Y. 2015-16, the respondents themselves treated the Seraulim property as capital asset is really begging the point because it is the case of the petitioners that this was the error committed by them on account of which they filed their applications under Section 264 of the I.T. Act. The aforesaid means that the impugned order is based upon certain circumstances, which can be styled as irrelevant. The petitioners, though had not placed any contemporaneous material before respondent no.1 at the time of hearing of their applications under Section 264 of the I.T. Act, have, in the course of present hearing, placed some material. The effect of such material cannot be decided by this Court and it is only appropriate that the same is decided by the respondent no.1 afresh. The impugned order also does not reflect that the same was based on the alleged failure on the part of the petitioners to make any fair valuation of the Seraulim property at the stage of their alleged conversion into stock in trade. No doubt, all these matters might be relevant for determining whether this is a case where the petitioners had made a genuine error, as contended by them, or whether, this is a case where the petitioners, merely, by way of an afterthought, seek to invoke provisions of Section 264 of the I.T. Act and thereby avoid paying capital gains tax. Interest of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and the respondent no.1 is directed to once again consider the petitioners' applications under Section 264 of the I.T. Act and to dispose of the same on their own merits and in accordance with law.
|