Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 69 at first place while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE which are contingent on satisfaction of requirements of section 69 cannot be independently applied by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 115BBE  & 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Rectification of Mistake—A survey u/s 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey proceedings, stock was physically verified and valued at Rs. 46,07,640/- and the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- as undisclosed investment in stock from undisclosed income. The surrendered income of Rs. 21,00,000/- was thereafter offered and reflected in return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for scrutiny and the returned income of Rs. 22,80,070/- filed by the assessee was accepted and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice u/s 154 was issued and same was replied by the assessee. AO held that section 69 is clearly attracted in the case and tax is to be charged in accordance with section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, tax @ 30% on surrendered income of Rs. 21,00,000/- was charged instead of tax charged as per the slab rate while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. On appeal, CIT(A) held that action of the Assessing officer u/s 154 is not justified. While dismissing appeal of revenue, TIAT held that “the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 69 at first place while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE which are contingent on satisfaction of requirements of section 69 cannot be independently applied by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act”.Asstt. CIT vs. SHRI SUDESH KUMAR GUPTA.[2020] 26 ITCD Online 043 (ITAT-JP)