9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows: The appellant had approached the writ court through the Writ Petition aforementioned, impugning Exts. P10 and P11 orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax that rejected the Revision Petitions moved by the appellant for revising the assessments for the years 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 under the Income Tax Act. The appellant is a SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) registered Portfolio Manager engaged in the business of rendering portfolio management services to its clients. It is also an assessee under the Income Tax Act, which has been filing returns and has been subjected to assessment for various assessment years. During the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. While so, on receiving the First Appellate Authority's order for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, that confirmed the assessment against the appellant by treating the profit on sale of shares as business income, the appellant filed Exts. P6 and P7 Revision Petitions in relation to the two assessment years, namely, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010, when it had actually suffered a loss, for treating the said losses as business losses that could be carried forward by the appellant in future years. It was the contention of the appellant that inasmuch as the Department had treated the profits from the sale of shares as business income for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, it was only logical and in the interest of uniform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us, it is the contention of Sri. Ravi Sankar P.K, the learned counsel for the appellant, that Exts. P6 and P7 Revision Petitions filed by the appellant before the revision authority were with a view to ensure uniformity in the matter of taxation as far as the appellant was concerned. He would point out that it would be grossly unfair to an assessee if the Department was permitted to vacillate between two heads of income for the purposes of taxation in different assessment years depending entirely on whether the assessee in question had returned a profit or a loss. It is his contention that the delay that was occasioned in impugning the intimation for the assessment years 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 was solely on account of the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department that it was the same aspect of delay/limitation that prevented the Department also from re-assessing the income of the appellant for the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, respectively. We find that during the said years the appellant had declared the profit on the sale of shares as capital gains and had obtained the benefit of a lower rate of tax on the said income, and the revenue was unable to reassess the said income as business income solely on account of the limitation provisions under the statute. As far as the appellant assessee is concerned, he too did not choose to file the Revision Petitions immediately after coming to know of the assessment order for the assessment years 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
