TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 528/- was wrongly included in the business income and thus the business income was showed at ₹ 25,55,002/- instead of ₹ 2,93,474/- thereby wrongly returned the income from STCG under the head income from the business and thus business income was overstated by ₹ 22,61,528/-. Secondly, we also find that short tax gain on sale of shares on which STT was paid which was liable for tax at the rate of 10% was wrongly shown under the head STCG (others), thereby offering the tax at the rate of 30%. Since the assessee has wrongly returned the income under the wrong heads and also at wrong rate of tax it is an apparent mistake on the face of record which should have been rectified by the authorities below upon being pointed out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y including the STCG of ₹ 22,61,528/- in the profit and loss account and also showing ₹ 22,61,528/- under the head capital gains (others) instead of under the head short term capital gain u/s 111A. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.9.2008 declaring total income at ₹ 48,16,530/- wrongly. The assessee strongly showed its income under the head business of ₹ 25,55,002/- instead of ₹ 2,93,474/- by wrongly including STCG on sale of equity shares covered by section 111A of the Act in the business income. Secondly, the assessee wrongly returned the income of STCG on sale of equity shares as short term capital gain (others) thereby taxing the said income at the rate of 30% inste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department and the AO. has .not pointed out any defect in the return of income, hence in my considered view the A.O. was completely justified in, passing the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. It is pertinent to note here that the legislation has specifically provided the provisions of revised return by which any inadvertent mistake can be revised, however of!. this pretext also, the appellant's fails in its duty. Even it is also an admitted fact by the appellant that while filing revised return, which is not uploaded in the system, the short term capital gain is shown in the column Short Term(others)(A8 of schedule-CG). Hence in this background also, the appellant's assertion cannot be accepted that the income shown by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake apparent on the face of record, both authorities below ignored this mistake and treated it as income and taxed which amounted to double tax which is against the scheme of Income Tax Act. The ld. Counsel finally prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the AO be directed to assess the income of the assessee as under : A) Income from business : ₹ 2,93,474/-; B) Income from short term capital gains u/s 111A : ₹ 22.61,528/- The ld. Counsel further submitted that the AO be directed to tax the income of the assessee from business at the rate of 30% and income from capital gain on sale of shares at the rate of 10%. 5. On the contrary, the ld. DR objected to the submissions of the ld.AR and fairly agreed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as wrongly shown under the head STCG (others), thereby offering the tax at the rate of 30%. Since the assessee has wrongly returned the income under the wrong heads and also at wrong rate of tax it is an apparent mistake on the face of record which should have been rectified by the authorities below upon being pointed out by the assessee. However, the submissions of the assessee did not find favour with the Income Tax Authorities and hence the matter is in appeal before us. It is a trite law that any income cannot be taxed twice and this amounts to double taxation of the same income which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. We, therefore finding merits in the submissions of the ld.AR, set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and direct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
