Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu (HUF) Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu (HUF), filed Form No.1 under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, disclosing an amount of Rs. 2,15,48,400/- as cash income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. However, the assessee failed to pay the taxes as per the provisions of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The Assessing Officer invoked section 197(b) of the IDS, 2016 and treated the declared income as income of the assessee in the year of declaration, imposing tax under section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed against this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was allowed. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law?
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the total income under the head 'capital gain'?
• 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered that the declaration filed shall be deemed never to have been made under the scheme if the declarant fails to pay the tax, surcharge, and penalty?
• 4. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered that the undisclosed income shall be chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act in the previous year in which such declaration is made?
• 5. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that if the declaration was invalid, no benefit regarding the head of income as claimed by the assessee as per the declaration can be allowed?
• 6. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reliance on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Sri Jiyyana Venkatarayudu for the AY 2017-18 was accepted by the Department on merits?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Rameshkumar G Patel vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(5) Vadodara

  Ahmedabad bench

• Sri Tanmoy Dutta vs. AO, NFAC/ITO

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Shashi Kant Chaurasia Vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19 & 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Water SAS, France Vs. D.C.I.T.

  Delhi ‘D’ Bench benchAY 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18Dismissed

• Vikas Sabharwal (HUF) vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench

• Shyama Devi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Shivalik Tower, 505, Ghaziabad

  Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed