|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 163419 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2024 (4) TMI 647
Eligibility of the assessee for exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or u/s 80P(2)(d) - interest income earned by a cooperative society from the schedule banks - appellant is a cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and accepting deposits from its members. It does not enjoy any license to carry on the business of banking from Reserve Bank of India.
HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd [2017 (4) TMI 663 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] took a view that such interest income is attributable to the activities of the society and, therefore, eligible for exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samit [2023 (1) TMI 783 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and Chennai Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. [2023 (1) TMI 1088 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]
The interest income earned on fixed deposits with cooperative bank/scheduled bank partakes character of the business income, which is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 646
Revision u/s 263 - "lack of enquiry” or “lack of investigation” - correct appreciation of conclusion that “interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration ought to be treated as income from other sources u/s. 56(2)(viii) of the Act” - HELD THAT:- We find plausible reasons in the contention of the Ld. AR that that the issue under consideration is no longer res integra, in as much as that identical issue arises into the case of other individuals namely Gulshan Kumar S/o Mohari Ram [2024 (2) TMI 748 - ITAT DELHI] wherein exactly similar and identical order has been has decided the issue in favour of assessee as held since the order of the Ld. AO is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam HUF [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] on the issue of taxability of interest received by the assessee under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act. it can at best be said to be a debatable issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beveraces P Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 138 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Revenue has not pointed any change into facts and circumstances of the present case. We therefore, respectfully following binding precedent (Supra), hereby allow the appeal of the assessee by quashing the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 645
Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - assessee has claimed huge amortization expenses on goodwill - HELD THAT:- As undisputed fact that in the reasons AO has recorded the escapement of income on account of amortization of goodwill which was not claimed by the assessee in computation of normal provisions of the Act and with regard to adjustment in book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act AO has not disturbed the same in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. So it is very clear that the reasons recorded are without verification of the records and accordingly, without application of mind.
AO has not bothered to even verify the information received with the assessment folder whether any such depreciation has been claimed by the assessee or not. It clearly reflects that the AO has mechanically recorded the reasons and issued the notice without applying his own mind. Ld. PCIT has also accorded approval u/s 151 of the Act based on the reasons recorded by the AO without ascertaining the actual facts of the case. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Sharvah Multitrade Compant P Ltd. [2022 (1) TMI 372 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] dealt with similar case and held that reassessment initiated based on reasons recorded on irrelevant facts and without application of mind cannot survive.
This, in our considered opinion, it is against the settled principles of law, as reopening of an assessment is an extraordinary power available to the ld AO and it should not be done in a cavalier manner. That is why the legislature in its wisdom had put lot of restrictions by imposing conditions for seeking approval and sanction from a superior officer in terms of section 151 of the Act.
AO recorded wrong facts on many count in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment i.e. AO recorded incorrect fact that assessee has claimed huge amortization expenses on goodwill and disallowed the same in the assessment order u/s 32 of the Act which was deleted by Ld CIT(A) by stating that no such expenses actually claimed by the assessee. The AO in the reasons also recorded incorrect fact that no assessment has been completed in this case u/s 143(3) but assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C completed on 29/12/2017 as recorded by the AO.
AO also incorrectly stated that provisions of section 147(2)(b) are applicable, whereas in the facts of the case provisions of section 147(2)(c) are applicable where the onus on AO is higher to prove escapement of income. The AO, therefore, recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons for reopening of the assessment. It makes clear that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the AO while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment - Thus Reopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 644
Disallowance of total job work charges paid to sister concern - invocation of section 40A(2) - HELD THAT:- Lower Authorities failed to make comparative study of the job work charges with any third party, therefore A.O. is not correct in making disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus the disallowance made by the Lower Authorities are hereby deleted. Thus Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.
Disallowance on adhoc basis on the job work charges - Addition at Rs. 2 per Kg for 16710 Kgs. on estimated basis on the job work carried out - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance only on the ground that the smallness of the disallowance which is not excessive. However the Assessing Officer has not justified the above disallowance with proper evidence, but only on misconception of the correct facts. Therefore the adhoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law. Therefore we direct the A.O. to delete the above disallowance.
Addition of duty drawback incentive which is offered for taxation on cash receipt basis in subsequent year - D.R. submitted that the assessee is not aggrieved by this issue and the CIT(A) already given relief to the assessee, hence this ground is liable to be dismissed - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. D.R. is correct in stating that the assessee is not aggrieved on this issue and there is already a direction given by Ld. CIT(A) to verify this issue and rectify the assessment accordingly. Therefore this ground raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed
-
2024 (4) TMI 608
Eligibility of Vivad se Vishwas scheme - Denial of claim as prosecution proceedings u/s 276CC of the Act were instituted for the aforesaid assessment years before the date of filing of the declarations and the proceedings were pending - As decided by HC [2022 (7) TMI 286 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] prosecution against petitioner No.1 is u/s 276 CC which pertains to failure to furnish return under Sections 139 (1) or under Section 153 A etc., of the Act. Such delayed filing of income tax returns cannot be construed to be a ‘tax arrear’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (o) of the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Therefore, such pending prosecution cannot be said to be in respect of tax arrear though it may be relatable to the assessment years in question and cannot render petitioner No.1 ineligible. Thus, rejection of the declarations of petitioner No.1 by the respondents cannot be sustained
HELD THAT:- Having considered the matter in detail we dismiss this Special Leave Petition. However, we keep the question of law open.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
-
2024 (4) TMI 607
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credit brought to tax - Addition u/s 2(2)(e) - amounts secured as loan were treated as “deemed dividend” - HC [2018 (2) TMI 2113 - DELHI HIGH COURT] deleted both the additions as done by ITAT and decided the appeal in favour of assessee.
HELD THAT:- As we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court does not warrant interference. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 606
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - expenditure incurred on earning exempt income - Effect of section 14A amendment - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by an order of the Supreme Court in Essar Teleholdings Ltd [2018 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] as held Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. - Decided against revenue
Addition made on account of income from interest - assessee is following mercantile system of accounting were the interest income would be considered on accrual basis - ITAT deleted addition - as per revenue Tribunal has erred in granting the benefit of Section 43D of the Act to the assessee - HELD THAT:- In absence of any doubt as to the status of the assessee as a State Financial Corporation and in face of the statutory scheme allowing it to account for recovery of interest on bad debts on cash basis, primarily, there is no error seen in the order of the Tribunal having allowed the benefit to the assessee to account for interest of bad debts on cash basis.
The revenue has not brought on record any material fact as may raise a genuine doubt as to the entitlement of the assessee to account for interest of bad debts on cash basis. Therefore, suggestion made by Shri Mahajan that the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in accordance with the scheme of the Act, is declined. In absence of any basis shown to make such an order of remand, we are of the opinion that that exercise may remain purely academic and may therefore serve no real purpose. Here, we may note that the Tribunal has not recorded any independent finding in the order impugned in the present appeal. It has rather followed its earlier order inter party for the Assessment Year 2001-02.
Revenue as fairly states that the revenue does not appear to have assailed that order inasmuch as despite making efforts to obtain instructions in that regard, those are not forthcoming.
We find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact based on material evidence on record.
-
2024 (4) TMI 605
Characterization of receipt - amount received by the appellant upon retirement from the partnership - taxability as capital gains under the Income Tax or not? - department, was of the firm stand that the right of the appellant in the partnership firm is a capital asset and the extinguishment of the right in the said firm is in fact a transfer of the receipt against capital asset - Appellant as contended that receipt of the share value of goodwill cannot be subjected to capital gains tax as there was no transfer of goodwill to the firm by the appellant - Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the receipt of the share in value of goodwill by the appellant is taxable as capital gains under the Act ?
HELD THAT:- Coming to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in SMT. GIRIJA REDDY, P HYDERABAD [2012 (7) TMI 652 - ITAT HYDERABAD] would give a clear indication that the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this High Court in Chalasani Venkateswara Rao [2012 (9) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has been accepted by the Tribunal while making the aforesaid observations. However, while concluding, the Tribunal took a different view altogether which, therefore, would not be in the opinion of this Bench, proper, legal and justified.
Therefore, the respondent-Department cannot tax the amount received by the appellant upon retirement from the partnership as capital gains as there is no specific transfer of a capital asset affected when the appellant had retired from the partnership firm. So also, the finding of the Tribunal holding that the receipt of share in value of goodwill by the appellant is taxable as capital gains is not proper. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Assessee appeal stands allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 604
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - reopening beyond period of four years - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds on stake money paid by the petitioner to the horse owners u/s 194B or Section 194BB - as argued receipt on behalf of the horse - owners and the debits affected on their instructions disclosing that the financials are prepared from the primary accounts and without claiming any expenditure in the regard, thus there cannot be any allegation of failure to truly and fully disclose material facts - HELD THAT:- The second respondent, while deciding on the petitioner’s objections to the reasons offered to initiate re-assessment, has overlooked that the question of failure to deduct TDS for the amounts paid as Stake Money and the amounts deducted from the Stake Money on the instructions of the horse-owners to the credit of the horse-trainers and jockeys was examined after scrutiny of the petitioner’s book while considering disallowing these amounts under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act.
In the light of the above, this Court must opine that there was no failure on the petitioner’s part to disclose primary facts and the reasons for re-assessment are recorded arbitrarily without considering all the circumstances. Hence, the second question framed is answered in favour of the petitioner holding that the re-assessment that is initiated after four years on the ground that there is failure to disclose primary facts is barred in law. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 603
Rejection of DTVsV application - petitioner/assessee was seeking to settle only a part of the dispute obtaining between them - HELD THAT:- Given the fact we have concluded, while disposing of MUFG BANK LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 & ANR. [2024 (4) TMI 530 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that an applicant can choose to settle one or more appeals or SLPs that may emerge from a given assessment year under the VSV Act, the issue raised in this writ petition stands covered by a decision in the said matter.
Accordingly, the prayer made in the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order rejecting the declaration and undertaking made by the petitioner/assessee along with the communication are set aside.
-
2024 (4) TMI 602
Validity of Reopening of assessment - as argued notices were not served on the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The documents that are relied on by the petitioner disclose that respondent had issued various notices to the petitioner calling upon him to file his returns for the year 2014-15. Even though it is contended that notices were not served on the petitioner, the same cannot be accepted, in view of the specific averment made in the assessment order regarding service of notices. Therefore, the contention taken by the petitioner is that, he was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and the order in question is an ex-parte order, also cannot be accepted.
Annexure-D was came to be passed on 19.03.2022 and before passing the order, several notices were issued to the petitioner. In spite of that, he has not chosen to appear before the authority and not complied the demand made therein. The next ground urged by the petitioner that the order in question was passed during Covid-19 also cannot be accepted.
Under such circumstances, even though we do not find any reason to entertain the petition, only to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, we deem it appropriate to quash the assessment order produced, and petitioner is directed to file income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15 with respondent No. 3 within 30 days from today and to cooperate in compliance of the procedure in terms of the Act.
-
2024 (4) TMI 601
Revision petition u/s 264 by assessee - contention of the petitioner was negated by passing the order in the absence of any proper material being placed on record by the petitioner to establish that there was expenditure incurred in relation to earning income - as argued when the money was collected by the petitioner from farmers and repaid to the rig owners, the petitioner has acted as only a collection agent and there cannot be any income that has been derived by the petitioner and the said aspect of the matter has not property considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax
HELD THAT:- In the first place, there is no material on record to show that there was income derived by the petitioner by doing business. According to the petitioner, he was only a collection agent. The previous year returns and the relevant year business would only go to show that he was running vulcanizing shop and he could not have derived so much of income from his business.
Nevertheless, it was for the petitioner to place on record necessary documents before the Commissioner of Income Tax so as to consider the case of the writ petitioner in a proper manner while exercising the revisional jurisdiction u/s 264 of the I.T. Act.
As settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the power of the revisional authorities is not as vide as an appeal and therefore, in was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to place clinching material on record so as to revise the order of assessing authority by exercising the power under Section 264 of the I.T. Act.
The petitioner having not placed on record such clinching material to show that what is the amount of money exactly derived, who are the persons who are land owners, who said to have dug the borewell in their lands and what exactly the charges that has been paid by him to rig owners, except producing the Bank statement as is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned order was inevitable.
Petitioner as seeks one more opportunity for the petitioner to place on record the necessary material before the Commissioner of Income Tax and requests the Court to set aside the impugned order and provide one more opportunity for the petitioner to place necessary clinching evidence so as to show that there was no income derived by him or to explain the alleged expenses.
Thus the matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 - the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
-
2024 (4) TMI 599
Ex-parte order passed by CIT - Revision u/s 263 - no representation on behalf of the assessee in respect of the notice issued by him - DR placed on record the assessment order passed by the AO in pursuance to the direction of Ld.Pr.CIT - HELD THAT:- DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is brought to our notice that the assessment has already been passed by the Revenue in pursuance to the direction of Ld. Pr.CIT.
From the assessment order, it is transpired that there was no compliance by the assessee. Further, it is noted that the original assessment order dated 21.10.2016 which has been revised, does not disclose any inquiry conducted by the AO except he accepted the documents filed by assessee. In the absence of any verification by the AO by making inquiry, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld.Pr.CIT. Under these identical facts in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 774 - SC ORDER] has approved the action of Ld.Pr.CIT. Therefore, respectfully following the same, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 598
Dismissal of appeal in limine u/s 249 by CIT(A) - Addition of purchase price of the property bought by assessee son - as argued payment made for purchase of property for which the investment is made by assessee's son from his own independent source - D.R. submitted that as per section 249(4)(b) the assessee is liable to file the return of income and pay the advance tax before filing the appeal before the CIT(A) but assessee failed to do so
HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act is clear that the appeal before the CIT(A) should be admitted only when the assessee paid the advance tax where return of income has not been filed. The proviso to said section also describes that the assessee will get exemption from this clause if the application is made before the CIT(A) for not filing return of income or paying advance tax.
But in the present case assessee has explained that the assessee herself has not obtained the said property but her son has paid the said amount for purchase of property from his own fund. In fact, the assessee’s son is a joint owner of the said property and for the sake of conveyance specially the conveyance deed, the stamp deed is lesser therefore the assessee’s name has been utilised in the conveyance deed.
The relation is direct relation between the mother and son and therefore this should have been considered by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act should have been pointed out by the CIT(A) during the hearing which the CIT(A) failed to do so. Merely on the technical ground, the appeal before the CIT(A) cannot be dismissed and in fact after seeing the merit of the case, it appears that the transaction was not doubted and the investment made by the son of the assessee was also not questioned by the Assessing Officer. Decided on favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 597
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - interest received from the Co-operative Bank - gross interest calculation - HELD THAT:- We note that issue under consideration is no longer res judicata and the interest received from Co-operative Bank is allowable deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for that reliance is placed on the decision of Surat VankarSahakari Sangh Ltd [2016 (7) TMI 1217 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that assessee-co-operative society was eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, in respect of gross interest received from co-operative bank without adjusting interest paid to said bank - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 596
Addition u/s 68 sales made by the assessee to M/s Sangeeta enterprises - distance between the factory of the assessee and destination of Sangeeta enterprises is 54 km and therefore in the timing that is provided in the invoices of dispatch of goods is not possible - argument in the decision of Unicot food products private limited [2023 (9) TMI 1458 - ITAT MUMBAI] which is raised before us by the learned departmental representative of goods transported from assessee to destination of Sangeeta enterprises in one lorry and at jet speed - HELD THAT:- We find that the distant shown by the learned departmental representative of 54 km however the learned authorised representative has shown that the distance has wrongly been calculated by the learned departmental representative by Google Maps taking the wrong destination. The correct destination is hardly 30 km away from the place of dispatch of goods to the destination of delivery of goods. Even otherwise, from the excise records of the assessee, the goods have been shown as dispatch to the Sangeeta enterprises and relevant quantity of goods are reduced from the stock. Such stock has been sold by Sangeeta enterprises and sales is assessed in the hence of Sangeeta enterprises. Even in the case of unicot food products private limited the dispute was with respect to the sales made by that entity to Samaira enterprises, the coordinate bench has upheld in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate from the finding of the coordinate bench in that case. We confirm the order of the learned CIT – A deleting the addition.
Addition u/s 69C - advertisement expenditure incurred by the assessee on video shooting of its product "santoor" not recorded in the books of account of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As the product Santoor is owned by the assessee, marketed by the assessee and manufactured by the assessee naturally the expenditure is belonging to the assessee only. Thus, the argument that these expenses do not belong to the assessee is devoid of any merit.
Also out of the total payment to be made of the expenditure of ₹ 28,222,000 the payment of ₹ 229 lakhs belongs to the period prior to 4/3/2014. Thus, the above payment, if at all made, does not belong to financial year 2014 – 2015. Thus, addition could not have been made for assessment year 2015 – 2016. Accordingly, the addition made by the learned AO under section 69C of the act and confirmed by the learned CIT – A is not sustainable and hence directed to be deleted.
Addition u/s 69A - unexplained money - Loose papers found the learned assessing officer noted that during search - HELD THAT:- We find that the order of the learned CIT – A in case of Unicote for products private limited has travelled before the coordinate bench wherein [2023 (9) TMI 1458 - ITAT MUMBAI] as according to ld. AO, the entire cash sales reflected in the loose sheets pertain to the assessee when there are corresponding sales, which has been accounted in the books of M/s. Samaira Enterprises. If that premise of the AO is to be accepted then sale of M/s. Samaira Enterprises would be nil which cannot be the case, because this entity has shown sales and is assessed to tax since past. Thus, based on these documents and the ld. CIT (A) has given his elaborate finding for his conclusion and given direction to the ld. AO to verify and cross check, whether the sales adopted by him from the loose sheets appears in the cash book / bank book / sales of M/s. Samaira Enterprises or not and similar exercise to be undertaken with respect to expenses of the outgoing in the loose sheets seized and impounded in search proceedings. We do not find any reason to tinker with such a direction, which is based on the facts and material on record. Decided against revenue.
-
2024 (4) TMI 595
Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - AO has treated that the activities of the trust as commercial activity by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) - HELD THAT:- As relying on decision by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case [2024 (3) TMI 944 - ITAT KOLKATA] we are inclined set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and further uphold that the assessee is entitled to exempt u/s. 11 of the Act during the year on the ground that the profit derived from the services rendered as public utility service is very meager or there is deficit. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 594
Addition u/s 68 - share capital/share premium received as unexplained - onus to prove - no compliance of summons issued u/s 131 to the directors of the assessee - HELD THAT:- When the assessee has filed all the evidences as desired by the AO ,then the assessee is presumed to have discharged the onus cast upon it and the onus shifts to the revenue to conduct an enquiry on this evidences and record findings as to how the investment/money received by the assessee are covered u/s 68 of the Act. However in the present case, we note that no such enquiry was conducted into the evidences filed by the assessee and the addition was made simply for the reason that there was no compliance of summons issued u/s 131 to the directors of the assessee for enquiry and to produce the directors of the subscribing companies. In our opinion, there is no substantive ground for making the impugned addition and non production of directors of subscribing companies cannot be a justification for addition u/s 68 - Also assessee has filed all the details/evidences/ information from his own source as well as from all the subscribers.
In the present case before us the assessee has furnished all the evidences before the AO but the AO has failed to conduct any further enquiry into these details /evidences and merely relied on the theory of non production of directors of the subscribing companies by the assessee while issuing no summons u/s 131 or notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the subscribers. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 593
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 - applicability of section 115BBE - HELD THAT:- Information received from investigation wing, while recording the reasons AO categorically mentions that escapement of income has arisen on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. However, assessee has already assessed u/s 143(3).
The search on Mr. Dilip Kumar Gupta, his statement and information about accommodation entries received by the assessee from Sarwaria Investments Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as a result into formation of belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment cannot be found fault with.
AO has received a tangible material and therefore, found if the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has been made, the reopening of the assessment on receipt of new information cannot be found fault with. As the assessee is also not challenging reopening of the assessment, same stands confirmed. Thus, ground no. 1 of the appeal is dismissed.
Addition u/s 68 - onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction - Assessee produces material to discharge onus cast up on it in reassessment proceedings showing identity and creditworthiness of the lender as well as genuineness of the Transaction. If we hold that such material is enough, it will result in to blurring distinction between reopening of an assessment and reassessment of income. Reopening is door to make a reassessment.
Assessee has accepted a loan from Sarwaria Investments Consultants Pvt. Ltd. To prove the identity of the above company, assessee has submitted the PAN No. of the lender as well as the fact that it is assessed with ITO, ward 2(1), Kolkata. With respect to the credit worthiness of the above loan, assessee has submitted the copy of the bank account of the lender with IndusInd bank. In the bank account when the loans were given to the assessee company, lender had received the sum from other entities.
With respect to the genuineness of the transaction, assessee has submitted the copy of account of the lender from the books of the assessee and the confirmation of the lender from the books of lender providing copy of account of the assessee. The bank account of the lender and bank account of the assessee is also shown at the time of taking of the loan and on repayment of the loan. Form no. 26 AS, which is the annual tax statement of the lender, also shows that assessee has paid interest to the lender is deducted. In view of the above information provided before the lower authorities it is clear that assessee has discharged its initial onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction as per provision of Section 68 of the Act.
Failure of the learned Assessing Officer to make any further inquiry on the document submitted by the assessee and throwing back onus on the assessee is fatal to the addition made in this case. Ld AO is not correct in holding that inquiry made by the Investigation wing is clear-cut. According to us AO should have conducted inquiry on the evidences submitted during reassessment proceedings either by (i) deputing inspectors (ii) issuing summons u/s 131 or (iii) by issuing inquiry letter u/s 133 (6), (iv) by asking assessee to produce the directors of the company. If none of the above steps or any other efforts are made by the ld AO on the evidences submitted, AO cannot make addition u/s 68 - we reverse the orders of the Ld. lower authorities and direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition u/s 68 - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 592
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - deduction u/s 35(2)(AB) was reduced by the Competent Authority - HELD THAT:- As time of filing of the return of income, the claim of deduction u/s 35(2)(AB) of the Act, was not reduced by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority had subsequently approved the expenditure to an extent , therefore, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, reduced its claim as approved.
CIT(A), therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applied the ratio laid down in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] It is not the case of the Revenue that expenditure claimed by the assessee, was not genuine. The accounts are audited and reported in Form No.3CLA was filed. Thus, the assessee had disclosed all material particulars before the Assessing Authority.
Merely because the DSIR reduced and approved lower expenditure should not be the only reason for imposition of penalty. The AO ought to have brought adverse material in respect of the expenditure so claimed by the assessee more particularly, when the assessee himself has reduced its claim as recorded by the AO in the assessment order itself.
Thus in the light of decision of M/s. Napord Life Sicences P.Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 980 - ITAT MUMBAI] no infirmity in the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly, dismissed.
........
|
