|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 175810 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1837
Revision u/s 263 - exemption of Long Term Capital Gain [‘LTCG’] u/s 10(38) - PCIT has categorically observed that the AO has failed to conduct the investigation and inquiry on the basis of the report received from Directorate of Investigation, Kolkatta wherein it is disclosed that M/s. Suchak Trading Limited is a penny stock company - Tribunal held that it is a case of inadequate enquiry without even pointing out what further enquiry could have been conducted
HELD THAT:- Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that PCIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order directing the AO to conduct further inquiries or verification which ought to have been condoned for the purpose of computation of the income of the assessee as the assessment order is found to be erroneous as per the provision of Explanation 2(a) to section 263 to that extent and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in absence of the inquiry which should have been made by the AO. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-assessee that there are two views are available is also not tenable.
Contention raised on behalf of the appellant assessee that there is breach of principles of natural justice as the documents which were relied upon by the PCIT for initiation of the revisional proceedings were not supplied is also without any basis as the PCIT has only relied upon the documents which are available on record at the time of assessment proceedings only and by invoking Explanation 2(a) to section 263 it was held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in absence of inquiry which ought to have been conducted by the AO.
Therefore, the case law relied upon by the learned advocate of the appellant is not applicable in the facts of the case as admittedly the assessing officer has not carried out inquiry which he should have made as appellant assessee has availed exemption of LTCG on transactions of sale of shares of penny stock company.
Therefore, in view of concurrent findings arrived at by the PCIT and the Tribunal and in the facts of the case when the AO has failed to conduct inquiry which should have been made by him, the PCIT was justified in invoking as per Explanation 2(a) to section 263 to hold that the assessment order would be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1836
Ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) - Addition made in rectification u/s 154 - non-appearance of the assessee before the lower authorities - HELD THAT:- In an affidavit the assessee has submitted that the company did not receive any notice u/s 147 or during the appellate proceedings and due to non-receipt of said notices the company was unable to respond the reassessment proceedings and appellate proceedings.
Keeping in view, the submission, order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as considering the Affidavit, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to the assessee. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order passed by the CIT(A) are set aside.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1835
Denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) - non-filing of Form 10BB by the Assessee-Trust - CIT(A) allowed claim as Form 10BB was filed within the time allowed by the CBDT Circular No.16/2024 dated 18.11.2024 - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the revenue has not been able to point out any specific error in the order of the ld. JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 10(23C)(via) of the Act and the requisite Form 10BB has also been filed.
The provisional approval u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act is also available with the assessee for the assessment years 2022-2023 & 2024-2025 vide an order dated 30.09.2021. This being so, as no error has been pointed out by the revenue in the order passed by the ld. JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai in the case of the assessee, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1834
Reopening of assessment - Period of limitation - notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act before six years from the end of the assessment year 2015 -16 - old regime notices - mandation to take prior approval of the ld. PCIT as per provisions of section 151 - allegation of mechanical approval by competent authority and without proper service of notice u/s. 148 - undisclosed capital gain
HELD THAT:- In the old regime, section 149(ii) prescribes the time limit for issuing notice u/s. 148 as four years, but not more than six years from the end of the assessment year if the income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment amounted to or was likely to amount Rs. 1,00,000/- or more.
In the instant case, AO found that the income/sale consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- under the head capital gain, which was not depicted in assessee’s ITR, was surely over one lakh rupees. Hence, notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 before six years from the end of the assessment year 2015-16, falls within the time limit prescribed u/s.149 of the Act of the old regime.
Perusal of the assessment order that prior approval of the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax was taken in accordance with section 151 of the Act of the old regime before initiating assessment proceedings u/s. 147/148 - AR has, though, mentioned that such approval was casual and in a mechanical manner, however, failed to elaborate the same. The assessee has not made any efforts to procure the said approval either through the process of this Tribunal or by any other mode available under law. Hence, it cannot be accepted that the approval/sanction was given in a casual or mechanical manner by the sanctioning authority.
Service of notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2021, it is an admitted fact that the Revenue issued notice through electronic platform on assessee’s email ID available with the department in consonance with section 282 r.w.s. 292BB of the Act.
All modes of service of notice are not required to be effected. The service through either of the given modes of service is sufficient. It also transpires that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, which were being proceeded in the faceless manner u/s. 144B and entire procedure of faceless assessment of income escaping assessment was adopted by the AO as provided u/s. 151A of the Act.
We accordingly, do not find any illegality or invalidity either in the notice u/s. 148 r.w.s. 142(1) or at any stage of the assessment proceedings. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the first point is accordingly determined against the assessee and in favour of the department.
Exemption u/s 54 - Whether an immovable property consisting predominantly four shops at the ground floor along with a single room at the first floor, can be treated as a “residential house” within the meaning of section 54, thereby qualifying for exemption of capital gains? - Admittedly, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of capital gains arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset on the ground that the assessee had invested in other residential properties within the stipulated period. One of such two properties purchased by the assessee comprises four shops at the ground floor and one room at the first floor.
A perusal of section 54 shows that this section provides exemption from capital gains tax if the capital gains arise from the transfer of a long-term capital asset being a residential house (buildings or lands appurtenant thereto), the income of which is chargeable under the head “income from house property”, and the assessee has, within the prescribed time, invested in the purchase or construction of another residential house. The term “residential house” is not specifically defined under the Act, but the legislative intent makes it clear that the nature and usage of the property are key determinants of the true character of the said property. The property should not be predominantly commercial in character. In the present case, the immovable property in question admittedly consists of four shops at ground floor and one room at first floor, which is also substantiated by the conveyance deed dated 04.02.2014 submitted by the assessee through his paper book. In common parlance, shops are not capable to be characterized as residential house.
Based on the composition and functional usage of the property, it is evident that the property purchased by the assessee was predominantly commercial in nature. The presence of a single room at the first floor of the commercial structure does not alter the dominant character of the property as the same is expected to be used for incidental and ancillary activities/for commercial purposes. The primary usage and income generation from the property appear to be from commercial activity and not from residential house, thereby disqualifying the eligibility of capital gains for exemption u/s. 54.
AR has utterly failed to adduce any corroborating evidence like electricity bills, municipal records etc. to justify the property in question to be a residential house. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the revenue authorities that the investment in second new property does not qualify for exemption from capital gain tax.
The sale deed dated 29.08.2014, which is part of assessee’s paper book at page 8 to 24 shows that the assessee Hazi Alauddin and his wife Smt. Hajjan Shahnaz Begum are shown to be the joint sellers/owners of the property. Hence, the share of the assessee in the sale consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- is half, whereas the Revenue has computed the capital gain after considering the entire sale consideration in the hands of the assessee.
Revenue seems to have ignored this fact that only 50% of the sale consideration can be taken into account for computation of capital gains in the hands of the assessee. For this limited point, the AO is directed to re-compute the capital gain on 50% share of the aforesaid sale consideration in the hands of assessee. The second point is accordingly determined partly in favour of the assessee.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1833
Rejection of grant of registration u/s 12AB and u/s 80G - application was not filed under the correct provisions - assessee trust was supposed to file application for grant of approval u/s 80G under Clause (iii) of First Proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 80G of the Act, whereas he incorrectly filed applicant in Clause (ii) of First Proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 80G
HELD THAT:- In the case of Global Academy for Medical Education & Science Trust [2024 (6) TMI 864 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] where CIT(E) by ex-parte order rejected the assessee trust’s applications for grant of registration u/s 12AB and u/s 80G, in view of the principles of natural justice, said authority was directed to re-consider grant of registration u/s 12AB and u/s 80G by providing one more opportunity to the assessee to pass appropriate orders.
In the case of Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Relief Trust [2025 (2) TMI 162 - ITAT RAIPUR] held that where CIT(E) rejected assessee trust’s application for registration under Section 80G on the technical ground that the application was not filed under the correct provisions, since there was no mention of any specific query or show-cause to the assessee about ineligibility to file an application under the provisions of Clause (iv)(b) of the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act in the impugned order, principles of natural justice had been violated by rejecting the application, without confronting the assessee about reasons for such rejection and thus, the matter was required to be remanded back.
In the case of Rotary Charity Trust [2025 (2) TMI 114 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that where assessee trust filed an application for final registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act and Commissioner (Exemption) rejected said application on ground that assessee was not fulfilling stipulated conditions prescribed for filing application for approval in Form 10AB, since assessee had inadvertently mentioned wrong section, issue was to be remitted back to file of Commissioner (Exemption), with a direction to grant final approval to assessee under Clause (iii) to First Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act, if assessee was otherwise found eligible.
Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1832
Addition u/s 68 - cash deposits during demonetization period - assessee was not required to maintain any books of account having returned income on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD
HELD THAT:- Additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are in complete disregard of the facts on record before the AO and the pleadings made by the assessee to the CIT(A) that the assessee was not required to maintain any books of account having returned income on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD and, therefore, no question of making any addition of either cash found deposited in its bank account or disallowance of expenses incurred by it.
Even on the aspect of unsecured loans added to its income u/s. 68 of the Act, it has been pointed out that it was demonstrated to the authorities below that majority of the loan was taken in the preceding year.
Clearly the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable since there is no application of mind to the facts on record and the pleadings made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before him. We, therefore, consider it fit to restore the issue back to the AO to frame assessment de novo after considering all the facts on record - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1831
Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest free advances given by assessee to its sister concern - commercial expediency or not? - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the order of the CIT(A) reveals that the assessee company has advanced an interest free loan to its sister concern and it has debited its profit & loss account of interest as paid to the banks and financial institution on secured loan raised for construction etc.
CIT(A) called the remand report during the appeal proceedings and found that there is nothing on record to prove that the interest free advance to the sister concern was made for non-business purposes. From the order of the Ld. CIT(A) it is evident that the investee company has been regularly paying the advance tax and effective tax rate in the hands of investee is more than the assessee
CIT(A) has examined the issue in correct prospective and rightly deleted the additions towards disallowances u/s 36(1) (iii) made by the A.O. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1830
Unexplained cash credit - sums deposited by assessee in the bank account during demonetization period - AO conducted inquiries u/s.133(6) from the concerned banks and also sought explanation of the assessee with respect to the source of this amount - HELD THAT:- The arguments advanced by the assessee that the customers have deposited these amounts directly in the bank account of the assessee, is not supported with any documentary evidences. The assessee has also failed to provide any details vis-à-vis goods supplied to the so called customers who have deposited the amount in the bank account of the assessee.
Assessee has placed on record certain additional evidences before us under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We remit this matter back to the file of the AO for examining the case de novo, in accordance with law, needless to say that the AO will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1829
Condonation of delay - delay of 134 days - disallowance u/s.43B - HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 134 days in the present appeal, for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay.
DR opposed the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. We have seen the application for the condonation of delay duly supported by a sworn affidavit of the Director of the assessee-company. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation application, we hereby condone the delay of 134 days and proceed to decide the appeal on the merits.
Today, when the matter was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite proper service of notice. However, this being an old appeal, we dispose of this appeal on merits.
CIT (A) has not at all adjudicated the disallowance u/s.43B in a judicious manner. Therefore, we restore this matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO to decide the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say, the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1828
Addition u/s 68 on account of current liabilities - CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention that the said liabilities represent bona fide deposits and interest accrued payable to members and form part of the regular credit operations of the cooperative society - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee is engaged in the business of mobilizing deposits and granting loans to its members, the existence of liabilities in this form is inherent to its functioning. The details were part of the audited financials and there is no material brought by the AO to suggest that these amounts are unexplained credits. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly treated them as genuine liabilities, not falling within the purview of section 68. Revenue Ground dismissed.
Disallowance on account of personal expenditure - AO noted that the tax audit report referred to personal expenditure of Rs. 40,00,000/-, while the return disclosed ‘NIL’ - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) verified from the computation of income that the above amount had been disallowed under item 23 of Part A–P&L in the return of income. The AO’s addition amounted to duplication, and the CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. No infirmity is found in the CIT(A)’s reasoning. Ground (b) is dismissed.
Addition u/s 68 - increase in loans and advances - CIT(A) deleted addition as accepted that these advances were part of the core activity of the co-operative society, and the increase was normal and verifiable from the balance sheet - HELD THAT:- Importantly, in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018–19, the Coordinate Bench dismissed Revenue’s appeal on a similar addition made u/s 68, holding that such balances in the balance sheet arising from regular credit operations do not attract section 68. Respectfully following the said decision and in the absence of any fresh evidence brought by the Revenue, we uphold the CIT(A)’s deletion. Ground (c) is dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 40A(7) - AO disallowed amount on the ground that it was not reported in the return, although it was mentioned in the tax audit report - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has verified that the assessee had already disallowed this provision in its computation under Part A–P&L, item 23. Since the amount stood already disallowed, there was no cause for a further addition. The AO’s action clearly results in duplication. Ground (d) is dismissed.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - AO denied the claim for want of evidence - CIT(A) evaluated the components of income and held that the interest incomes were derived from members and hence eligible - HELD THAT:- Out of Rs. 43,13,281/- of total bank interest income Rs. 41,40,282/- earned from investments with co-operative banks was held allowable u/s 80P(2)(d), as supported by the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 [2023 (12) TMI 1418 - ITAT SURAT] and Ashwinkumar Arban Co-op. Society Ltd. [2024 (11) TMI 971 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In absence of any contrary material, we find no merit in the Revenue’s challenge. Ground (e) is dismissed.
Admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A - CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal on the basis of explanations and reconciliations derived from the return and its annexures which were available to the Assessing Officer but were not examined by him due to lack of response from the assessee and the consequent best judgment nature of the assessment. It is also well settled that the first appellate authority is empowered under section 250(4) of the Act to make further inquiries or call for additional information as deemed necessary and is not constrained by the provisions of Rule 46A where the factual basis of adjudication is already present in the record and no new documentary evidence is relied upon. In these circumstances, the action of the CIT(A) cannot be held to be in violation of Rule 46A, as the explanations considered were contextual clarifications supported by existing financials, and no factual prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused to the Revenue - Ground (f) is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1799
Revision u/s 263 - limitation period in suo motu revision - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the respondents can re-open the assessment order within a period of two years from the end of the relevant financial year. In the present case, the assessment order was passed on 20.06.2017 and the said two year period came to an end on 31.03.2020. Therefore, on or before 31.03.2020, the second respondent should have passed the suo motu revision order.
But in the present case admittedly, the suo motu order was passed by invoking section 263 on 22.03.2021, clearly after the expiry of limitation of two years. Thereafter, another assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022 by the third respondent. Therefore, it is a clear case that the entire proceeding is a violation of Section 263(2). Hence, the assessment orders passed by the respondents 2 & 3 stands quashed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1798
Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C - allegation of suppression of income - incriminating material - Satisfaction note recorded or not? - whether seized documents is related to the assessee and what is the incriminating effect? - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) certainly, apart from mentioning that the seized documents related to the assessee, there is not a word as to how and what material content related to the assessee so as to allege that there was suppression of income.
The satisfaction note is certainly not worded in accordance with the law requiring the AO assuming jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act to show that the seized document pertained to the assessee and it should be further reflected as to how the income was not disclosed.
The fact that in the reasons the AO mentions that the cases of group are interconnected and required deep investigation to arrive at a logical conclusion, certainly establishes non-application of mind and not having sufficient material to have recourse to section 153C of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1797
Addition u/s 69A - cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and further there were credit entries as unexplained - Assessee has died - legal heirs of the deceased seeked placing additional evidences - AO observed that despite issuance of several notices of hearing, the assessee did not comply and accordingly, he made addition - HELD THAT:- Assessee/legal heirs of the deceased filed paper book stating that the assessee had not been keeping well for a long time and had ultimately expired on 24th December, 2024.
Assessee also filed revised Form 36, bringing the legal heirs of the assessee on record. The Counsel for the assessee also furnished medical and payment receipts to demonstrate that the assessee had been unwell for a long time and was undergoing treatment. The assessee also filed sale bills towards sale of rice (agricultural produce) to demonstrate that the assessee was earning agricultural income, which were duly disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, for the impugned year under consideration.
On going through the facts of the assessee’s case and the details filed by the assessee before us, in the interest of justice, the matter is hereby restored to the file of the assessing officer for de novo consideration. The legal heirs of the assessee would be at liberty to furnish any evidence, in support of its case - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1796
Levy of late fee u/s. 234E - furnishing of TDS quarterly statements belatedly - returns processed u/s. 200A of the Act prior to 01/06/2015 - HELD THAT:- As relying on Pancharatna Buildcon Pvt. Ltd [2024 (12) TMI 460 - ITAT PUNE] no late fee u/sec. 234E can be imposed for the periods prior to 01.06.2015. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1795
Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan receipts - onus to prove - documents which are claimed to be incomplete as per the Department - AO opined that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of the unsecured loan - HELD THAT:- It is a case of the assessee that the lower authorities have ignored the vital fact that the said loans were taken during the relevant previous year through banking channel, and for the purpose of applying section 68 source of the source need not be proved for the year under consideration.
It is not the case of the Department that the Assessee has not at all produced any document, however, it is a case of Department is that the assessee has provided incomplete documents and not produced the director of the lender company.
Considering the fact that the assessee has indeed produced certain documents which are claimed to be incomplete as per the Department in the absence of any material available on record to examine the factual dispute, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating issue afresh. The assessee is hereby directed to produce the ‘complete’ documents to the satisfaction of the Ld. CIT(A) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1794
Depreciation on factory assets leased out - real owner of assets - finance lease v/s operating lease - assessee cooperative society has leased out its factory to other party and the assets on which depreciation has been claimed were not used by the assessee himself.
HELD THAT:- As earlier the assessee itself was running the sugar factory but due to financial crisis the factory with all assets was handed over to other party for running the business. We also find from the details that the income by leasing out the factory was shown as business income by the assessee cooperative society and in earlier years such depreciation was also allowed to the assessee cooperative society under similar facts and circumstances of the case.
Copy of assessment order for assessment year 2017-18 and copy of first appeal order for assessment year 2016-17 were produced before us wherein depreciation was allowed to the assessee cooperative society.
The Revenue is not in appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing depreciation on such leased assets. Thus, we find force in the arguments of assessee that the AO as well as CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not allowing the depreciation claimed by the assessee since the same was already allowed in earlier years and therefore there is no reason to disallow the same in subsequent years. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1793
Addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE - unexplained cash credit in bank accounts - CIT(A) deleted addition - Assessee contended that bank accounts in which the amounts in cash was deposited are pertaining to M/s Sahara India and not of the Assessee
HELD THAT:- CIT(A) found that none of the bank accounts are belongs to the Assessee and all the bank accounts are belong to M/s Sahara India, wherein, the Assessee is only an authorized signatory and her PAN was wrongly linked to the said bank accounts by the bank.
CIT(A) has found that PAN number of the Assessee was erroneously uploaded by the bank officials to those bank accounts instead of uploading the PAN number of the firm i.e. M/s Sahara India. AO has not established in any manner whatsoever that the Assessee was the beneficiary of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of M/s Sahara India firm. Also not the case of the AO that the cash so deposited in the firm has been subsequently transferred to the account of the Assessee and the AO has not given a single instance of any money having been transferred from the account of M/s Sahara India firm to the Assessee’s account.
CIT(A) has deleted the addition based on the Certificates given by the Bank that the bank accounts are not belongs to the Assessee and the same are belongs to M/s Sahara India. As Department of Revenue has not brought any contrary evidence on record against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1776
Writ of Mandamus or writ directing the respondent to release the assets seized during the course of search, i.e., jewellery and bullion - As decided by HC [2024 (8) TMI 1578 - DELHI HIGH COURT] preliminary objection was raised by the respondents with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the search was undertaken by the Income Tax authorities situate in the State of Haryana and the seizure of material also having been effected by them. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts, we find no justification to either entertain or continue this writ petition on our board.
HELD THAT:- It has come on record that after filing of the petition, the case of the petitioners has been centralized and transferred from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), Delhi to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad (Haryana).
Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Petitioners may seek their remedy before the High Court having jurisdiction.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1775
Delay as beyond the condonnable period - ex parte order - delay of 6 months in filing the appeal against the assessment order - as submitted assessment order was issued to an outdated e-mail ID of his former auditor - HELD THAT:- No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
This Court is inclined to set aside the rejection order by condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, since the reason assigned by the petitioner appears to be genuine.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1774
Taxability of capital gains in the assessment year 2007-08 - transfer of property u/s 2(47) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, AO having accepted the transfer in the assessment year 2004-05 and levied tax thereon, cannot sing a different tune in the assessment year 2007-08. In the assessment year 2004-05, the property in question was treated as transfer as per the definition of Section 2(47)(v) in the hands of the Assessee and consequently, capital gains was also assessed in that assessment year. After treating all transfer of the property in the hands of the Assessee as transfer in the assessment year 2004-05, it is not open to the Revenue to again treat the same property as transfer by the same Assessee in the assessment year 2007-08 also.
As submitted that under Section 50C of the Act, if the consideration received is less than the value adopted by the same valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value adopted shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration received as a result of such transfer and stamp duty payable. The Section says “all such transfer”.
Transfer admittedly happened in the assessment year 2004-05 and the Assessing Officer has accepted the value in the assessment year 2004-05 and has also levied capital gains tax. Therefore, we would agree with the Tribunal that there is no merit in the stand taken by the AO and capital gains cannot be assessed in the assessment year 2007-08.
............
|
9911796707
