TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JUDGMENT A. K. Sikri J.- 1. This appeal pertains to the assessment year 1993-94. The respondent/assessee had filed his return of income for that year in the status of individual on October 29, 1993. He owned 70,000 shares of a company named M/s. NEPC Micon Ltd. A rights issue was floated by the said company offering two equity shares per every share held by the existing share holders at a premium of Rs. 30 per share. The assessee renounced this right in favour of third parties and received a sum of Rs. 36 per share. This renunciation of his right resulted in short-term capital gain of Rs. 36 per share, which was clearly shown as such in the income-tax return filed by him amounting to Rs. 25,20,000. Simultaneously, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under section 234A of the Act arose, as the Assessing Officer had held that the return ought to have been filed on or before June 30, 1993, whereas it was filed on October 29, 1993. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had calculated the penal interest under the aforesaid provision from July 1, 1993. The contention of Shivani Devi was that in the income -tax return, she had admitted business income and therefore, the income-tax return was required to be filed on or before October 31, 1993, which was filed before that date and therefore, no interest was chargeable. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside this order of the Assessing Officer also in respect of Shivani Devi on the ground that in the impugned order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is "partly allowed", that is because of the reason that the appeal in the case of Shivani Devi was partly allowed inasmuch as various grounds were raised by Shivani Devi and all of them were not accepted. However, in so far as the two issues with which we are concerned, viz., short-term capital loss claimed by Shivani Devi as well as challenge to the computation of penal interest under section 234A of the Act, these two grounds of Shivani Devi were allowed. 5. Not only this, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue. On the contrary the appeal effect was given by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer, in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the due date of return in the case of the assessee had already become final by virtue of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order in the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the Assessing Officer could not exercise his powers of rectification under section 154 of the Act. 8. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that in the case of this assessee, the question of fixing the due date by which the assessee was required to file the income-tax return had become final by virtue of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
