TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 2016 has been passed accepting the same etc, therefore, the question of any tax escaping assessment also would not arise - HELD THAT:- When the matter was carried in appeal, the Division Bench of this Court in [ 2013 (3) TMI 826 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] came to a categorical finding that from bare reading of Sub-section 3(A) of Section 113 of the MRTP Act, it is crystal clear that Petitioner is declared as an agent of the State Government and this statutory status bestowed on Petitioner cannot be whittled down, nor can be elevated to any other position by an administrative decision. The Division Bench also came to a finding that Petitioner is getting only Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum towards administrative expenses and Petitioner on its own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment at Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, which has to be assessed in the hands of Petitioner. The ITAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the case on merits with regard to income of Rs. 5,00,000/- received by Petitioner after allowing deduction for any expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the said income. Even in the assessment order for Assessment Year 2013-2014, i.e., the case at hand, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income of Petitioner to be a fixed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- only. Thus the question of any income escaping assessment in the case of Petitioner does not and can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions including that (a) the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is clearly barred by limitation; (b) the notice is issued on the basis of change of opinion; (c) Petitioner is only an agent of the State Government and as the State Government itself cannot be taxed, Petitioner also cannot be taxed; (d) in any event the income of Petitioner is restricted to Rs. 5,00,000/-, which has been offered to tax and an assessment order dated 31st March 2016 has been passed accepting the same etc. Therefore, the question of any tax escaping assessment also would not arise, 6. We feel if we consider the last two grounds mentioned above, the petitions can be disposed without devoting time to consider other grounds raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gle Judge of this Court has given conclusive finding that Petitioner was carrying out work on behalf of the State Government. When the matter was carried in appeal, the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal ( LPA ) No. 184 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 1211 of 2009 came to a categorical finding that from bare reading of Sub-section 3(A) of Section 113 of the MRTP Act, it is crystal clear that Petitioner is declared as an agent of the State Government and this statutory status bestowed on Petitioner cannot be whittled down, nor can be elevated to any other position by an administrative decision. The Division Bench also came to a finding that Petitioner is getting only Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum towards administrative expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remuneration received from the State Government at Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, which has to be assessed in the hands of Petitioner. The ITAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the case on merits with regard to income of Rs. 5,00,000/- received by Petitioner after allowing deduction for any expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the said income. 12. Even in the assessment order for Assessment Year 2013-2014, i.e., the case at hand, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income of Petitioner to be a fixed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- only. 13. In view of the above, in our opinion, the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
