Bombay Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayad Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 23 (1) and ANR Justic S.P.Deshmukh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.6096 OF 2021

Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed ]
9/A, Ground Floor, Palm Land CHS ]
Old Cottage, Mumbai 400 050. ] .. Petitioner.

v/s.

1. Assistant Commissioner of Income ]
Tax, Circle 23(1), having office ]
at Room No.113, 1st Floor, Matru ]
Mandir, Tardeo Road, ]
Mumbai 400 007. ]

2 Principal Commissioner of Income ]
Tax-19, Mumbai having office at ]
Room No. 228, 2nd Floor, Matru ]
Mandir, Tardeo Road, ]
Mumbai 400 007. ] .. Respondents.

Mr. K. Gopal with Ms. Neha Paranjpe, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sham Walve, for the Respondents.

CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
 ABHAY AHUJA, JJ
DATE : 8th APRIL, 2021.

JUDGEMENT (PER ABHAY AHUJA J.):-

This petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, whereby Petitioner is challenging the order dated 12 February 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting the revision petition filed by Petitioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Income Tax Act”).

2 Brief facts leading to the petition are as under: For the assessment year under consideration i.e. A.Y 2018–19, petitioner who is an individual, received income from house property of Rs.12,69,954/- and income from other sources of Rs.14,35,692/- making the total income to Rs. 27,05,646/- and after claiming deductions and set off on account of TDS and Advance Tax, the refund was determined at Rs.34,320/-. However, while filing return of income on 20th July 2018 for A.Y 2018 – 19, the figure of long term capital gains of Rs.3,07,60,800/- was purported to have been wrongly copied by Petitioner’s Accountant from the return of income filed for the earlier assessment year i.e. A.Y 2017–18, which had arisen on surrender of tenancy rights by the Petitioner for that year. It is submitted that the assessment for A.Y 2017–18 was completed under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act vide Assessment Order dated 24 December 2019. Petitioner submits that she has not transferred any capital asset and there can be no capital gains in the assessment year under consideration and therefore no tax can be imposed on such non-existent capital gains for A. Y. 2018-19.

3 It is submitted that the returns filed by the petitioner for A.Y 2018 – 19 were processed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 2nd May 2019 and a total income of Rs.3,34,66,446/- including long term capital gains of Rs.3,07,60,800/- purported to have been inadvertently shown in the return of income thereby raising a tax demand of Rs.87,40,612/-.It is the case of Petitioner that the Central Processing Centre (“CPC”) of the Income Tax Department at Bengaluru accepted the aggregate income for the year under consideration at Rs.25,45,650/- as presented in column 14, however the taxes were computed at Rs.87,40,612/- on the total income of Rs.3,33,06,450/- as described above. It is submitted that upon perusal of the order under section 143 (1) dated 2nd May, 2019, Petitioner realized that the amount of Rs.3,07,60,800/- towards long-term capital gains had been erroneously shown in the return of income for the year under consideration.

To know more in details find the attachment file