Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 477 - AT - Income TaxRetraction made of the statement through filing affidavit – Statement was made u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act - accommodation bills – Held that:- It is for the assessee to tell as to how it has been able to identify some of the bills earlier considered as bogus, as being actually not so - Initial disclosure was voluntary - Assessee does not contend of it being not so, or of having been made under pressure or under physical or mental stress - In the absence of any charge of coercion, mis-representation or fraud, the onus on the assessee to show as to what mistaken belief or incorrect fact/s attends the earlier disclosure, and which it has completely failed to discharge. Exhibition of the mistake or error or incorrect statement, with which the earlier statement is ostensibly imbued with, a matter of fact, is a burden cast by the law on the assessee, and cannot be discharged merely by another ‘voluntary’ statement. On the contrary, there is nothing sacrosanct about the affidavit, so that it is liable to be necessarily controverted in order to be considered unacceptable. Facts are to be proved on the basis of material and evidences, and not on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits – Decided against the Assessee. Deduction u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act - Rs.8 lakhs, being compensation paid to the local fishermen in connection with the construction of a temporary Jetty at Cuddalore - The assessee claimed to have met the said expenditure out of the cash generated from the accommodation bills procured from M/s. Sachin Crane Service; M/s. Rajesh Hiring; and M/s. Jayesh Crane & Transport Co., for an aggregate of Rs.8.22 lakhs – Held that:- There is no question of any double deduction in respect of Rs.8 lakhs. The same is being claimed and would stand to be allowed in terms of our foregoing order, u/s.37(1), separate and distinct from the addition qua the accommodation bills for Rs.8.22 lakhs, which have under the facts and circumstances of the case been considered as the source of funding of the said expenditure. Disallowance for the sum being stated to be paid on account of commission for obtaining bogus accommodation bills – Held that:- The said expenditure is not for generating any income per se, but rather depressing artificially the income already reflected per the assessee’s regular books of account - The stated purpose of booking the expenditure in the accounts is an illegal activity. The same is definitely an offence under, and in any case prohibited by, the law, including the Act, so as to be hit by Explanation to section 37(1) - The same does not represent any economic activity, and is deemed to be an income under the Act for the simple reason that it leads to artificially depressing the actual profit/income as reflected by the assessee’s books of account. No business purpose as such is served – Decided against the Assessee. Levy interest u/s.158BFA(1) of the Act, if the work of the photocopying was incomplete - The assessee was required to file its return u/s.158BC on or before 01.05.2000 - The copies of the assessee’s record were made available to it only subsequently, so that it could not have possibly filed the return by 01.05.2000 – Held that:- Interest being compensatory in nature, any delay which is not attributable to the assessee could not be a subject matter of levy of interest - Interest could be charged to the assessee only for the period after allowing 15 days clear time from the date on which the copy of the relevant records was made available to the assessee – Decided in favor of Assessee.
|