📰 𝗠𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗶 𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗡𝗼 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗲 📢 The Division Bench of Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) stated, "The revenue assumed that the assessee

claimed exemption under section 10(10A) or section 10(10D) of the Act in the return of income of the said investment was matured before the stipulated period. The assessee declared this income in the return of income. So accordingly, there is no question of concealment of fact."

🔍 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀: 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗧𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲: Laxman Gore Shreshtha vs. DCIT 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗡𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿: ITA 1908 & 1909/Mum/2024 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲: The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 148, with the AO assuming that income from a

matured investment was escaped income. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀: The assessee declared the maturity in their return of income and treated it as a long-term capital loss. However, the AO denied this claim and added back the entire amount, assuming it was received pre-maturity.

⚖️ 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: The Mumbai ITAT ruled that there was no concealment of fact since the assessee had declared the income in their return. The tribunal clarified that an assumption of jurisdiction based on incorrect facts cannot justify reopening an assessment.

Consequently, the ITAT quashed the reassessment and allowed the assessee's appeal. 📜 This ruling underscores that taxpayers should not be penalized for assumed mistakes when they have transparently declared their income.

It emphasizes the importance of accurate assumptions in tax assessments. #arr4nirc #MumbaiITAT #IncomeTax #LegalUpdate