Dismissed

Equity Intelligence India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021WP(C)/9255/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The court held that disputing the applicability of a CBDT circular regarding capital gains versus business profit touches the merits of a pending appeal, thus not being a mistake apparent from the record subject to rectification.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the dismissal of the rectification and revision petitions is dismissed.

Equity Intelligence India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO.9255 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

EQUITY INTELLIGENCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ABHILASH VARGHESE, 5TH FLOOR, AREEKAL MANSION, MANORAMA JUNCTION, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.P.K.RAVI SANKAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018.

¶11

2 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI - 1, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.

¶12

3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOCHI, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036.

¶13

SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT ON 10.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, is a “Portfolio Manager” as defined under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 1993. The petitioner Company invests surplus funds from its principal business of Portfolio Management in equities of Indian Companies, apart from parking the funds in bank accounts. The 1^st respondent issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') asking the petitioner Company to explain why profit on sale of shares should not be treated as business income. In response to the said notice, the authorised representative of the petitioner Company appeared before the 1^st respondent and relying on Circular Nos.4/2007 and 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) contended that the profit on sale of shares is capital

¶19

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶20

¶21

gain. Clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph No.3 of Circular No.6/2016 (Ext. P3) are extracted hereunder:-

¶22

“a) Where the assessee itself, irrespective of

¶23

the period of holding the listed shares and securities, opts to treat them as stock-in-trade, the income arising from transfer of such shares/securities would be treated as its business income.

¶24

b) In respect of listed shares and securities held for a period of more than 12 months immediately preceding the date of its transfer, if the assessee desires to treat the income arising from the transfer thereof as Capital Gain, the same shall not be put to dispute by the Assessing Officer. However, this stand, once taken by the assessee in a particular Assessment Year, shall remain applicable in subsequent Assessment Years also and the taxpayers shall not be allowed to adopt a different/contrary stand in this regard in subsequent years;”

¶25

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶26

¶27

Relying on the said clauses, it was contended that the

¶28

income sale of listed shares sold after holding them for more

¶29

than 12 months amounting to Rs.3,08,67,375/- should be assessed as long term capital gains and should not be treated as business profit.

¶30

The 1^st respondent passed Ext.P2 assessment order wherein the 1^st respondent took a stand that the short term capital gains of Rs.1,43,14,697/- and long term capital gains of Rs.3,08,67,375/- earned by the petitioner Company from

¶31

the sale of listed equity shares of Indian Companies should be treated as Business Profit and not Capital Gain.

¶32

Challenging Ext.P2 order of assessment, the petitioner Company preferred an appeal under Section 246 of the Act before the 3^rd respondent and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Company preferred Ext.P6 rectification application before the 1^st respondent under Section 154 of the Act. It was contended therein that the 1^st

¶33

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶34

¶35

respondent, while passing Ext.P2 order, went wrong in disregarding Ext.P3 Circular No.6/2016 of CBDT and treated the long term capital gain from sale of listed shares as taxable under the head business and therefore, there is a mistake apparent from the record which requires to be rectified.

¶36

The 1^st respondent, by Ext.P7 order, dismissed the application for rectification reiterating the reasons stated in the assessment order. Against Ext.P7, the petitioner Company preferred Ext.P8 revision petition before the 2^nd respondent under Section 264 of the Act contending that the assessing authority, while passing the said order, did not advert to Ext. P3 Circular relied on by the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent rejected the revision petition by Ext.P9 order. Exts.P7 and P9 are impugned in this writ petition.

¶37

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the petitioner Company has already instituted a Regular Statutory Appeal against Ext.

¶38

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶39

¶40

P2 order of assessment and that Ext.P6 rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Act pertains to the same issue. Being a parallel proceedings instituted by the assessee on the very same issue, Ext.P6 application for rectification is not maintainable. It is also stated that the petitioner Company, whose business is trading in shares, is not covered by Ext.P3 circular and the scope of power under Section 154 is very limited.

¶41

Heard Sri.P.K.Ravi Sankar, learned Counsel for the

¶42

petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶43

Sri.Ravi Sankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner Company contended that Ext.P6 rectification application under Section 154 of the Act is to correct mistake apparent on the face of record and notwithstanding the appeal filed against the order of assessment, the application for rectification of mistakes is independently maintainable.

¶44

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶45

¶46

According to Sri.Ravi Sankar, the Assessing Officer refused to consider Ext.P3 Circular while issuing Ext.P2 assessment order and the same is a mistake apparent from the record and the assessing authority is bound to rectify such mistake and amend Ext.P2 assessment order when the same is brought to the notice of the said authority by Ext.P6 application. He also contends that Section 119 of the Act provides for powers of the CBDT to issue Circulars and the assessing authority is bound to observe and follow such circulars and instructions. Sri.Ravi Sankar has also relied on the decision reported in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v . Commissioner of Income Tax [2012 (3) SCC 784: 2012 KHC 4121] wherein the Apex Court has held that the circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act are binding on the Income Tax Authorities and the same has to be followed for a uniform and proper administration and application of the provisions of the Act. He also contends that

¶47

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶48

¶49

the objection regarding parallel proceedings is raised for the first time by the respondents in the statement filed before this Court and there is no such objection in Exts.P7 and P9 orders. Sri.Ravi Sankar further contends that, since the main factor for consideration by the assessing authority is whether the profit on sale of shares is capital gain or business income, for determining the said issue, Ext.P3 Circular is relevant and the assessment order passed without reference to such circular suffers from mistake apparent from the record and the said mistake is liable to be rectified by the 1^st respondent in exercise of the powers under Section 154 of the Act. The 1^st respondent has to exercise the powers under Section 154 of the Act even if an appeal is pending consideration before the appellate authority against the order of assessment or even when the matter has been concluded by the appellate authority.

¶50

Per contra, Sri. Jose Joseph would rely on the

¶51

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶52

¶53

decision reported in T.S.Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV v . Bombay Volkart Brothers and Others [1971 (82) ITR 50 : 1971 KHC 576 : 1971 (2) SCC 526 : AIR 1971 SC 2204] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not open to the assessing authority to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceedings under Section 154 of the Act and that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Sri.Jose Joseph also made available a copy of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext. P2 order of assessment and contended that the main issue raised therein is with regard to nonconsideration of Ext.P3 Circular by the assessing authority. He submits that what has been raised in Ext.P6 rectification application touches on the merits of the assessment order

¶54

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶55

¶56

which can be considered only in appeal. Non-consideration of

¶57

the circular being a matter pending consideration in appeal, the application for rectification amounts to institution of parallel proceedings.

¶58

I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the refusal to consider Ext.P3 Circular amounts to mistake apparent from the record which is to be rectified in a proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. As submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has raised the very same issue in the rectification application as well in the appeal filed against Ext.P2 assessment order which is pending consideration before the appellate authority. The contention of the petitioner in Ext.P6 rectification application touches on the merits of the grounds raised in the Regular Statutory Appeal filed against Ext.P2 assessment order. The applicability of the circular and whether the assessing authority went wrong in disregarding

¶59

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶60

¶61

the CBDT circular are grounds raised in the appeal by the petitioner. This question requires an adjudication in the appeal by hearing parties on questions of facts and law. Therefore, the issue raised in Ext.P6 application is not a mistake apparent from the record which is to be rectified in a proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. There is no merit in the challenge against Exts.P7 and P9 orders. The writ petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the statutory appeal filed against Ext.P2 order shall be considered and decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law, untrammeled by any observations in Exts.P7 and P9 orders. There will be no order as to costs.

¶62

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶63

W.P.(C) 9255/2021

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9255/2021

¶66

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶67

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE THE P	COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIAT ETITIONER COMPANY DT. 7/12/2002.	ION OF
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE 27/12	COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT /2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDE	DATED NT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.6 OF 29/2/2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL	2016 BOARD
	OF D MINIS	IRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF RE TRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF IN	VENUE, DIA.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE IN WP COURT	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/ (C) NO.4618 OF 2020 OF THIS HONO .	2/2020 URABLE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE IN HONOU	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/ WP(C) NO.10002 OF 2020 OF RABLE COURT.	6/2020 THIS
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE DATED COMPA	COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PE 22/1/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETI NY BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.	TITION TIONER
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE THE RECTI	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/2/20 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING FICATION PETITION.	20 OF THE
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE 10/2/ COMPA	COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION 2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETI NY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.	DATED TIONER
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE ISSUE	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/ D BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.	3/2021

¶68

spc/

Equity Intelligence India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Equity Intelligence India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala

K.N.Krishnankutty and Anr. Vs Assistant Engineer,Pwd(Roads) Section

M/S Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Pourvazhy Mayyathumkara Shafi Vs District Collector

C. Thulaseedharan Vs State of Kerala

Pious Antony Vs State of Kerala