TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income tax, was assessed as income for the Previous Year 2013-14 relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. However, as stated above, the said amount was brought to tax by the Income Tax Authority in the Assessment Year 2012-13. Clearly, the same amount cannot be taxed twice over. It is settled law that an assessee is liable to pay income tax only on the income that is chargeable under the Act. Merely because an assessee has offered a receipt of income in his return does not necessarily make him liable to pay tax on the said receipt, if otherwise the said income is not chargeable to tax. In CIT v. Shelly Products [ 2003 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ] the Supreme Court held that if the assessee had, by mistake or inadvertently, included hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application filed by the Petitioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2014-15 and directing acceptance of application dated 16.02.2018 thereby excluding interest income of Rs.1,51,67,868 from the income of the Petitioner for assessment year 2014-15; and (ii) consequential relief, directing the Respondent to immediately allow refund of tax (along with applicable interest, as per law) paid by the Petitioner on the amount of Rs.1,51,67,868 [being interest on income tax refunds pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11] during the assessment year 2014-15, and/ or adjustment of the same towards the tax liability of the Petitioner for assessment year 2012-13, in terms of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The interest on refund of tax, for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, was sought to be included in the taxable income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on the ground that the said interest was received during the Previous Year 2011-12. 5. Initially, the petitioner contested the inclusion of the said amount of ₹1,51,67,868/-, which was received in the Previous Year 2011-12, as chargeable to tax in the Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that the said amount was included in the income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and thus, had not escaped assessment warranting any addition in the income changeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2012-13. However, this contention was not accepted and the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹1,51,67,868/- had been taxed twice over, on 16.02.2018, the petitioner applied for revision of the assessment pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The respondent did not take any steps in regard to the said application for a period of more than 3.5 years. 10. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Commissioner in not considering its application under Section 264 of the Act, the petitioner filed a writ petition (being WP(C) No.8177/2021) in this Court. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 11.08.2021, directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner s application dated 16.02.2018, filed under Section 264 of the Act. 11. The petitioner s application was rejected by an order dated 04.10.2021, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision of any order passed and the contention of the matter to be revised should obviously be a part of the said order passed. In this case the asseasee had filed application ul8 264 of the Act against the order uls 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1981 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-4-, New Delhi but mentioned about correcting the interest amount wrongly claimed by it in its Return of Income. This Issue does not form part of the order u/8 143(3) of the Act passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-4-, New Delhi. I have perused the assessment order passed as above and the application u/8 284 of the Act filed by the assessee. I could not find any material in the application made by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely because an assessee has offered a receipt of income in his return does not necessarily make him liable to pay tax on the said receipt, if otherwise the said income is not chargeable to tax. In CIT v. Shelly Products: (2003) 5 SCC 461, the Supreme Court held that if the assessee had, by mistake or inadvertently, included his income or any amount, which was otherwise not chargeable to tax under the Act, the Assessing Officer was required to grant the assessee necessary relief and refund any tax paid in excess. 19. It is also well settled that the powers conferred under Section 264 of the Act are wide. In Vijay Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-XIII Anr.: 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1961, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
