| Case ID |
1f78c69d-8de5-496a-897a-473ec7797e0d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 54 OF 2007 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 19, 2011 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court determined that the Assessing Officer should have granted the benefit of the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the assessee, who was unaware of the amendment. The decision emphasized that while ignorance of law is generally not an excuse, it can be considered in tax matters. The first appellate authority's direction to compute the long-term capital gain at the rate of 10% was upheld, indicating that the assessee's statutory rights were properly adjudicated. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the order of the CIT(A), allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. |
| Summary |
In this significant case from the Allahabad High Court, the court addressed the application of section 112(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which pertains to the taxation of long-term capital gains. The case arose when the assessee, Smt. Raj Rani Gulati, sold shares resulting in a long-term capital gain but initially reported it at a higher tax rate due to ignorance of a recent amendment that introduced a lower tax rate. The court ruled that the Assessing Officer should have considered the proviso to section 112(1) that allowed for a reduced tax rate of 10%. This case highlights the importance of statutory rights in tax matters and reinforces the principle that the department should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. The ruling reinforces the ability of the first appellate authority to allow legal issues to be raised, ensuring justice is served in tax assessments. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Devi Prasad Singh,
Dr. Satish Chandra
|
| Lawyers |
Asish Bansal,
S.K. Garg,
W.U. Ahmad,
D.D. Chopra
|
| Petitioners |
Smt. Raj Rani Gulati
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2012 SLD 3323 = (2012) 346 ITR 543
|
| Other Citations |
Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 (SC),
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC),
CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42/172 Taxman 258 (Delhi),
CIT v. Ramco International [2009] 180 Taxman 584 (Punj. & Har.),
Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404/50 Taxman 171 (All.),
CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [1986] 160 ITR 920/27 Taxman 267 (SC),
P.V. Devassy v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 502 (Ker.),
Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 (SC),
R. v. Sussex Justices [1924] 1 KB 256
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
112(1),
251
|