|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 627 Records
-
2007 (1) TMI 212
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against deletion of addition in block assessment, cross-objection by assessee challenging validity of assessment order and levy of surcharge and interest u/s 158BFA(1).
Validity of Assessment and Limitation Issue:
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground of limitation. The search was conducted on 17th Nov., 2000, concluded on 12th Dec., 2000, and the assessment was completed on 13th Jan., 2003. The assessee argued that the assessment should have been completed by 30th Nov., 2002, relying on a Tribunal decision. The Departmental Representative contended that the time-limit extended to 31st Jan., 2003, based on the last Panchnama drawn on 3rd Jan., 2001. The Tribunal held that the assessment made on 30th Jan., 2003, was beyond the limitation period as the search was concluded on 12th Dec., 2000, and the last Panchnama was on the same date. Referring to s. 158BE(1) r/w Expln. 2, the Tribunal annulled the assessment as it should have been completed by 31st Dec., 2002, and was thus barred by limitation.
Conclusion:
The assessment was annulled due to being time-barred, rendering other grounds raised by both parties unnecessary for disposal. The cross-objection was partly allowed, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 211
Determination of ALV - let out a commercial space on an annual rent - interest-free security deposit - Income From House Property or Not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case admittedly neither the assessee has given the annual letting value as determined under the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act or NDMC Act or under the Rent Control Act nor the Assessing Officer has determined the same u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act as observed in our order herein above, hence, we set aside the orders of tax authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the ALV of the property-in term of section 23(1)(a) of the Act by considering the Municipal Valuation as per the MCD Act/By-Laws or NDMC Act/By-Laws or under Delhi Rent Control Act whichever is applicable in the instant case of the assessee and thereafter in case he finds the ALV of the property so determined to be higher than the actual rent declared by the assessee the rental income should be enhanced accordingly and in case he finds the rent declared by the assessee to be higher than the ALV so determined by the Assessing Officer then he should accept the same and should not make any addition in this regard. In the result the Ground No. 1 of the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed partly for statistical purpose.
Disallowance to personnel and administrative expenses - In the instant case since the assessee has furnished the complete details of expenses incurred by the assessee for the business of the assessee, in our opinion, the tax authorities below were not justified in making the ad hoc proportionate disallowance of these expenses without identifying any such expenditure having been incurred by the assessee for administrative and personnel purposes and more so, when according to the assessee he was simply receiving rent from the tenant, which was deposited in the bank account of the assessee for which it has not incurred any separate expenditure. Thus, the ad hoc proportionate disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) in this regard cannot be upheld and, therefore, the order of CIT(A) in this regard is set aside and Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.
Disallowance of telephone expenses, car expenses/depreciation - HELD THAT:- We hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order of Assessing Officer wherein a case of a company he disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee-company with regard to telephone and car/depreciation treating the same to be of personal nature. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) in this regard is set aside and the disallowances sustained by the CIT(A) in this regard are deleted. Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 209
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of action taken u/s 147/148 of the IT Act.
2. Disallowance of claim of deductions u/s 80-IA of the IT Act.
3. Netting of interest income.
Summary:
1. Validity of action taken u/s 147/148 of the IT Act:
The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and the subsequent notice u/s 148 on three grounds. Firstly, the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of audit objection were invalid, citing case laws such as Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT. Secondly, the original return was processed within the permissible period, and thus, the AO had no power to issue notice u/s 148, supported by the case of Vipin Khanna vs. CIT. Thirdly, it was argued that there was a change of opinion by the AO, making the notice u/s 148 invalid. The Departmental Representative countered these arguments by citing cases like New Light Trading Co. vs. CIT and N. Sandeep Reddy vs. Asstt. CIT, asserting that reopening based on audit objections is permissible. The Tribunal concluded that since the return was processed summarily u/s 143(1)(a) without an order u/s 143(3), the AO had not applied his mind, and thus, there was no change of opinion. The proceedings u/s 147 and the notice u/s 148 were held valid.
2. Disallowance of claim of deductions u/s 80-IA of the IT Act:
The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80-IA on interest from Vikas cash certificates was disallowed by the AO, treating it as "income from other sources" rather than "business income." The CIT(A) upheld this decision, referencing several judicial pronouncements, including K. Ravindernathan Nair vs. Dy. CIT and Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the interest earned on Vikas cash certificates does not have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking and thus cannot be considered as profits and gains derived from the business. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction u/s 80-IA.
3. Netting of interest income:
The assessee's alternative plea for netting of interest income was also rejected. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both held that since the interest income was assessed under "income from other sources," only expenses directly incurred to earn that interest could be set off, which was not evidenced by the assessee. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan and other relevant case laws to support this conclusion. Consequently, the benefit of netting of interest was not allowed.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, upholding the validity of the proceedings u/s 147/148, the disallowance of the deduction u/s 80-IA, and the rejection of the netting of interest income.
-
2007 (1) TMI 208
Additions made u/s 68 - Cash Credits - non maintenance of books of account - creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of gifts - HELD THAT:- The finding of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of ITO v. Dr. Jagdish J. Kansangara [1997 (9) TMI 134 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A], squarely applies. It is apt to note that "a man may lies but the circumstances do not". No meters are available for examining the truth and correctness of statement made but the surrounding circumstances and the relevant fact will throw light on the genuineness or otherwise of any transaction. It is true that even stranger can give gifts and it is also held in some cases that there is no need for any occasion to give gifts.
However, when all the circumstances like absence of relation, absence of occasion, no counter gifts, gifts from persons of no means to the so-called wealthy and influential persons etc., all put together lead to one and only conclusion that gifts are not genuine. A person who is speaking true will not shirk his responsibility as well as liability to say the same before any examining authority. In some cases a person may not be available instantly but why and in what circumstances he will not come forward to tell the truth should be demonstrated. None of the donors has stated any reason as to why they are not available for examination. The assessee has not been able to produce any such reason. Thus all the circumstances put together lead us to hold that the gifts are not genuine.
It is seen that the assessee has prepared his statement of affairs. A statement of affairs is nothing but a balance-sheet of a person as on a particular date. Such statement can be prepared only from the books of account. Thus firstly it is incorrect on the part of the assessee to contend that he is not maintaining any books of account. The statement of affairs prepared is testimony of the same. Such statement also includes the receipt of gift. Thus once it is found that the gifts are not genuine and such gifts explain assets held by the assessee, the amount has to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and liable to be added as income.
Thus, we hold that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of gifts. Accordingly the addition in respect of alleged gifts is to be upheld.
In the result, all the appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 207
Applicability of section 13(1)(bb) - Charitable And Religious Trust - Object of general pubic utility - earning from activity of running Shilp Kala Kendra and insurance commission are eligible exemption u/s 11 ? - stitched and tailoring charges were earned - Grants in aid from the Social Welfare Board - HELD THAT:- Assessee must be held to have carried on an object of general pubic utility, which is the fourth head mentioned in section 2(15) and not that of imparting education. The consequence will be that section 13(1)(bb) is not attracted. However, the assessee has to still satisfy the condition that the carrying on of the object of general public utility does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. The words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" appearing in section 2(15) were omitted by the Finance Act, 1983 only with defect from 1-4-1984. Therefore, for the years under consideration, these words were present in the sub-section and, therefore, it is necessary for the assessee to establish that the charitable object pursued by it does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit.
We have already noticed that with effect from 15-12-1976, the insurance agency business was discontinued. Therefore, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the only activity carried on by the assessee was the Mahila Shilp Kala Kendra. So far as this activity is concerned, the main argument of the learned CIT DR was that the assessee was making huge surplus from this activity which did not go for the benefit of the women and destitutes who were making the uniforms.
In the case of Thiagarajar Charities v. Addl. CIT[1997 (4) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court was considering the difference between the objects of a trust and the powers given to the trustees to achieve the object. In the case before the court, the objects of the trust were charitable. The trustees were given the power to carryon the business in cotton yarn, cloth etc. The business constituted the corpus or the property held under trust. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 11 in respect of the income from the business. The Supreme Court upheld the claim holding that the business was only a means of achieving the objects of a trust and since the profits from the business was spent for the objects of the trust, the trust was entitled to the exemption.
In the present case, though it is not the assessee's case that the business of Mahila Shilp Kala Kendra itself was held under trust, that would not make any difference to the ultimate result, because as laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the surplus from the Mahila Shilp Kala Kendra has been consistently applied for the charitable activities carried on by the assessee and to this limited extent, the aforesaid judgment applies to its case. It should, however, be noted that the provisions of section 13(1)(bb) were not under consideration before the Supreme Court since the assessment years involved in the case was 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, during which years the provisions of section 13(1)(bb) were not in the Act.
In the ultimate analysis, to the limited extent of saying that if the profits of the business carried on by the trust feed the charitable objects then it can be said that the activity carried on by the trust is not guided solely by a profit motive, the aforesaid judgment applies. We may also add that even in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association case, the same principle was laid down.
Moreover, the CIT took proceedings u/s 263 to deny the exemption to the assessee-trust for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 but dropped the proceedings. For the assessment years 1984-85 to 1999-2000 the Assessing Officer himself granted the exemption and these assessments have not been disturbed. For the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Tribunal allowed the exemption. In such circumstances, following the rule of consistency also, apart from the reasons given by us earlier, the assessee's claim has to be upheld.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the view in CIT v. Lagan Kala Upvan [2002 (12) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Director of Income-tax v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [2003 (10) TMI 25 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the income-tax authorities cannot take inconsistent views on the same set of facts. Respectfully following these decisions and applying the rule of consistency, the assessee's claim requires to be upheld. This reasoning of ours is independent of the other reasons given by us in the earlier paragraphs to uphold the assessee's claim.
In the result, we accept assessee's claim and allow all the assessee's appeals.
-
2007 (1) TMI 206
Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Assessing Officer assuming jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the Assessing Officer assuming jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The first ground in both these appeals by the assessee relates to the challenge to the validity of the Assessing Officer assuming jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, an AOP consisting of non-resident foreign companies, filed returns for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 declaring nil income, adopting the Completed Contract Method of Accounting under Accounting Standard AS-7. The Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 148 for both assessment years, citing reasons that contract receipts amounting to Rs. 212 crores had escaped tax. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, relying on the Assessing Officer's findings for assessment year 1998-99 and Explanation 2(b) to section 147, which deems escapement of income if the Assessing Officer notices understatement of income or excessive claims in the return. The Tribunal, however, found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not reference the returns of income filed by the assessee, nor did they establish a bona fide belief of income escapement. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's belief was based on vague, irrelevant, and non-specific information, and there was no nexus between the belief and the information in possession. The Tribunal also held that the revenue cannot substitute reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer with new reasons to justify reassessment. Consequently, the Tribunal annulled the reassessment proceedings, concluding that the Assessing Officer did not assume valid jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Act. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the other issues raised did not require adjudication. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 205
Issues Involved:
1. Notional income in respect of interest on Orissa Construction Corporation Ltd. (OCC).
2. Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss.
3. Allowing the carry forward of loss to succeeding assessment years.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Notional Income in Respect of Interest on OCC:
The first issue pertains to the upholding of Rs. 8 lakhs as notional income in respect of interest on OCC at 16% per annum on Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had advanced Rs. 50,000 to OCC Ltd. as a temporary loan bearing 16% interest. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, and thus, the interest should have been shown on an accrual basis. The Tribunal referenced AS-9, stating that revenue recognition is postponed when ultimate collection is uncertain. However, since the income had accrued to the assessee, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the additions. The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the assessee, following the principle of precedence from the assessee's own case in preceding assessment years.
2. Disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss:
The second issue involves the disallowance of Rs. 15,98,612 relating to foreign exchange fluctuation loss incurred on account of a contract with foreign buyers. The Tribunal referred to AS-11, which states that monetary items denominated in a foreign currency should be reported using the closing rate. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting and had considered the foreign exchange fluctuation loss to present a true and fair picture of the company's state of affairs. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the amount as an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This ground was allowed in favor of the assessee, following the Tribunal's previous decision in the assessee's own case.
3. Allowing the Carry Forward of Loss to Succeeding Assessment Years:
The third issue is related to the carry forward of the loss for the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee filed its return on 28th Feb., 2000, before the extended time limit under Section 139(1), but without the auditor's report. The AO issued a deficiency notice and treated the return as 'invalid' under Section 139(9) due to the absence of the audited report. The AO disallowed the carry forward of the loss, citing that the return was treated as invalid and thus, the assessee failed to furnish the return as required under Sections 139(1) and 80 of the IT Act.
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order. The assessee argued that the delay in filing audited accounts was beyond its control as it is a Government of Orissa undertaking and the audit is controlled by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The CBDT Instruction No. 1348 states that if the return indicates that the audit has not been completed, the return should not be treated as defective. The Tribunal noted that the AO was aware of the audit situation and that the assessee had previously filed returns based on provisional accounts, which were accepted by the Department. The Tribunal held that the original return filed under Section 139(1) was valid and directed the AO to allow the carry forward of the loss and unabsorbed depreciation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the first ground and allowed the second and third grounds of the assessee's appeal. The appeal was partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee on the issues of foreign exchange fluctuation loss and carry forward of loss.
-
2007 (1) TMI 204
Issues:
1. Allowance of business loss to be carried forward.
2. Disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 6 lakhs.
3. Disallowance of expenses pertaining to prior period amounting to Rs. 2,49,953.
Issue 1 - Allowance of Business Loss to be Carried Forward:
The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the business loss for the assessment year 1998-99. The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer was justified in not allowing the business loss to be carried forward due to the return of loss being filed after the due date. The assessee filed the return of income on 30-11-1998, within the prescribed due date, but without the required audit reports. The Assessing Officer issued a deficiency letter, and the assessee filed a revised return on 5-3-1999 with the necessary documents. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision but directed the allowance of depreciation. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 139(3) and 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the discretion of the Assessing Officer to grant additional time for rectifying defects in the return. As the Assessing Officer did not respond to the application for extension, the Tribunal held that the revised return filed on 5-3-1999 was valid. Therefore, it directed the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of the determined loss for future set-off, overturning the order of the CIT (Appeals).
Issue 2 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses of Rs. 6 lakhs:
The assessee raised a ground regarding the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 6 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press this ground, leading to its dismissal as not pressed.
Issue 3 - Disallowance of Expenses Pertaining to Prior Period of Rs. 2,49,953:
The Tribunal considered the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 2,49,953 pertaining to the prior period. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses without proper verification. The Tribunal observed that there was no discussion in the Assessing Officer's order regarding the disallowance. It directed the issue to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer, with a requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue, allowing ground No. 4 for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, addressing the issues related to the business loss carry forward and the disallowance of prior period expenses.
-
2007 (1) TMI 203
Deletion Of Penalty levied u/s 271A - Maintenance Of Accounts as per provisions of section44A - Difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench - Third Member Order - HELD THAT:- The learned Judicial Member was of the view that levy of penalty imposed u/s 271A should be upheld by allowing the appeal of the Revenue. He considered provisions of section 44AA of the Income-tax Act and reached the conclusion that the assessee deliberately and consciously did not maintain books of account and avoided attendance of assessment/penalty proceedings. The assessee also did not furnish any reasonable cause for not furnishing required books. He was further of the view that in the absence of books, the Assessing Officer was not able to see whether there was contravention of provisions of sections 269SS, 269T and 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act etc. In upholding the levy of penalty, the ld Judicial Member strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal ('SMC' Bench) in the case of Amarjit Singla. The ld Judicial Member in the proposed order accordingly set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and restored order of the Assessing Officer.
The learned Accountant Member did not agree with this view of the ld Judicial Member. He considered the decisions of the Tribunal followed by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order cancelling the penalty. He noted that the assessee was not required to maintain any specified books. Rule 6F of Income-tax Rules was not applicable in this case. After considering decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Unicon Builders & Contractors, as also of Vinod Kumar Bhim Sain's case and several other decisions of Division Bench noted in his proposed order, he held that there were no good reasons for making a departure and upholding the penalty. In fact, it is noted that he and his brother, the ld Judicial Member here were party to a decision where on similar facts in the case of a contractor, penalty levied u/s 271A, was cancelled.
Third Member Order - Expenses are found to be unvouched and claim inadmissible. Entries made are also rejected. But from the order of AO, it cannot follow that no books are maintained and in such cases, Assessing Officer is 'unable' to compute, the total income.
It is not possible to argue that in all such cases, provisions of section 44AA are violated. There are separate provisions in section 271 to deal with the above wrong and false accounts. Therefore, failures which are dealt in other provisions cannot be read in section 271A of the Income- tax Act. There is ample power u/s 144/145 to deal with reliable accounts. Assessing Officer can disallow and add back unvouched and inadmissible expenses. The assessee has to suffer. Assessing Officer faces no inability such a situation. Therefore, no penalty, in my humble opinion, can be levied u/s 271A if the books of account are found to be un-reliable by revenue authorities and are rejected. In the case in hand, the Assessing Officer had applied flat rate of 12 per cent as 'reasonable' rate against 8 per cent statutorily provided in cases of civil contractors. It cannot be argued that statute has provided a rate which is not reasonable.
Further, having regard to provisions of section 44AD, which is overriding, it is not possible for the revenue to argue that profit computed as per the section is not profit computed 'in accordance with provisions of this Act' or that the Legislature was unaware of provisions of sections 68, 69, 269SS, 269T, 140(3) etc. in the enactment of section 44AD. Thus reading entire scheme of the Act one has to hold that profit computed as per section 44AD of the Act by application of flat rate is one recognized method of computation of total income, or part of total income. The fact that the above provisions is applicable only to cases where gross contract receipts are below Rs. 40 lakhs, does not make any difference to the nature of business carried by the assessee or method of computation. Having applied such high rate of 12 per cent Assessing Officer cannot contend that he was unable to make assessment. Therefore, in the above peculiar circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) was right in holding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee under section 44AA of the Income-tax Act and penalty imposed u/s 271A was not justified.
There is another good but independent reason for not upholding levy of penalty in this case. It has been observed by the ld CIT(A) that similar penalties imposed on the assessee for assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 were cancelled on appeal by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals). This fact is also noted by both the ld Members in their proposed orders. The learned counsel for the assessee informed me that the revenue did not challenge the above orders of CIT(A) in further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and these orders have attained finality. There is nothing on record to contradict the assessee. If on identical facts, penalty levied on the assessee was cancelled u/s 271A, there is no justification to levy penalty this year under consideration. No distinguishing features have been brought on record.
The state of statutory provision as discussed is far from clear and, therefore, even if it is assumed that the assessee had an obligation to maintain regular books of account, which he failed to do, the failure is definitely due to a reasonable cause and the case is covered under provisions of section 273B of the Income-tax Act. Having regard to the treatment meted out in earlier years, the assessee could reasonably believe that he is fully complying with the provisions of section 44AA of the Income-tax Act and his belief under the circumstances cannot be said to be otherwise than a bona fide belief. The cancellation of penalty is required to be upheld.
Thus, I agree with the order proposed by the ld Accountant Member.
The matter may now be placed before the regular Bench for disposal in accordance with law.
-
2007 (1) TMI 202
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 26,24,981 made on account of unexplained fabrication charges and unexplained investment in the purchase of yarn.
2. Justification of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition.
3. Whether the matter should be remitted back for re-examination.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of the Addition of Rs. 26,24,981:
The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 26,24,981 by the CIT(A), which was initially added by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to unexplained fabrication charges and investments in yarn purchases. The AO based this on documents seized during a search on 23-2-2002, which indicated fabrication work from M/s. Virka Textiles and M/s. Shivam Knitting Works. The AO inferred that the books of account were not traceable and thus treated the expenses as undisclosed income.
2. Justification of the CIT(A) in Deleting the Addition:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that the fabrication charges were already debited in the trading account for the relevant financial years and that no evidence was found during the search to suggest that the assessee was involved in any illegal activities. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO's addition was based on assumptions and surmises rather than concrete evidence. The CIT(A) relied on several case laws, including Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT and Dr. R.M.L. Mehrotra v. ACIT, which underscored that additions in block assessments must be based on evidence found during the search and not on presumptions.
3. Whether the Matter Should Be Remitted Back for Re-examination:
The Judicial Member suggested remanding the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication, citing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to substantiate its claims. However, the Accountant Member disagreed, arguing that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions as they were based on surmises and conjectures without any material evidence found during the search. The Accountant Member emphasized that the AO had not brought any material on record to substantiate the claim of undisclosed income.
Third Member Decision:
The President, acting as the Third Member, resolved the difference by agreeing with the Accountant Member. He highlighted that the incriminating documents (challans) found during the search did not conclusively prove undisclosed income. The President noted that the assessee had shown fabrication charges and purchases in its audited accounts for the relevant periods, and the AO's addition was based on insufficient evidence. He emphasized that under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, undisclosed income must be based on evidence found during the search, and in this case, no such evidence was found. The President concluded that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, and remanding the case for re-examination was unnecessary.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes only, with the majority opinion favoring the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). The judgment underscored that additions in block assessments must be based on concrete evidence found during the search and not on presumptions or guesswork.
-
2007 (1) TMI 201
Challenged the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 - Jurisdiction Of AO - calculation of the "book profits" u/s 115JA - assessment originally framed u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- As the present case is concerned, it relates to cl. (iv) of the Explanation below s. 115JA(2) of the Act. Sec. 115JA inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 also seeks to impose tax on the 'book profits' of a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The said section also refers to the 'net profit' as shown in the P&L a/c for the relevant previous year prepared in accordance with provisions of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956 and subject to the adjustments as outlined in the Explanation below sub-s. (2). The erstwhile s. 115J is pari materia to s. 115JA which we are presently dealing with insofar as it relates to the controversy on hand. In our view the parity of reasoning enunciated in the case of G.T.N. Textiles Ltd.[2000 (8) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable in the instant case to understand the amount deductible in terms of cl. (iv) of the Explanation below s. 115JA(2) of the Act. Following the aforesaid, in our view, for the purposes of cl. (iv) of the Explanation to s. 115JA(2) it is not the actual deduction u/s 80-IA which is relevant but what is relevant is the profits of eligible undertaking computed in terms of the P&L a/c for the relevant previous year prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956. Considering the order of the AO in the aforesaid light, the same clearly emerges to be untenable in the eyes of law.
Factually speaking, there is no dispute that the net profit has been computed for the power co-generation unit of the assessee is in terms of the P&L a/c prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, in terms of cl. (iv) it is the amount that is deductible to arrive at 'book profits' u/s 115JA of the Act.
AO while reducing the amount of deduction allowed u/s 80-IA from the 'net profits' shown in the P&L a/c for the instant year prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of the Sch. VI of the Companies Act, in order to compute 'book profit' squarely fell in error. The said action of the AO is clearly not warranted by the statutory provisions. Hence in terms of the ratio of the decision in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. [2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], in the instant case, the AO exceeded his jurisdiction while computing 'book profits' u/s 115JA of the Act by seeking to exclude the actual amount of deduction allowable u/s 80-IA in contrast to the actual profits of the eligible unit.
Thus, we hereby affirm the decision of the CIT(A) and stand of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 200
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion and assessment of Rs. 14,49,14,951 as short-term capital gains.
2. Bifurcation of aggregate sale consideration of Rs. 16,99,85,636.
3. Extinguishment of appellant-company's rights in the land and building.
4. Hypothetical, imaginary and artificial bifurcation of sale consideration.
5. Assessment of aggregate gains as long-term and short-term capital gains.
6. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D.
7. Validity and reasonableness of the appellate and assessment orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion and Assessment of Rs. 14,49,14,951 as Short-term Capital Gains:
The primary issue was whether the capital gains from the sale of the 4th to 7th floors of Wing 'A' should be bifurcated into long-term capital gains for the land and short-term capital gains for the superstructure. The assessee argued that the gains attributable to the land should be assessed as long-term capital gains, while the gains from the superstructure should be assessed as short-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) treated the entire amount as short-term capital gains, asserting that the rights in the land were extinguished when handed over to the developer.
2. Bifurcation of Aggregate Sale Consideration:
The assessee bifurcated the sale consideration of Rs. 16,99,85,636 into Rs. 12,31,42,645 for land and Rs. 4,68,42,991 for the building, based on a valuation report. The AO and CIT(A) rejected this bifurcation, stating it was arbitrary and hypothetical. The Tribunal found that the bifurcation was done on a reasonable and scientific basis, supported by a Government Approved Registered Valuer's report, and upheld the assessee's method.
3. Extinguishment of Appellant-Company's Rights in the Land and Building:
The AO and CIT(A) held that the assessee's rights in the land and building were extinguished upon handing over to the developer, and the new assets were received in lieu of the old ones. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that the Development Agreement specified that only 56.8% of the land was transferred to the developer, while the assessee retained 43.2% ownership. Thus, the assessee's rights in the land were not entirely extinguished.
4. Hypothetical, Imaginary, and Artificial Bifurcation of Sale Consideration:
The tax authorities argued that the bifurcation of sale consideration was hypothetical and artificial. The Tribunal found this argument baseless, noting that the valuation report by the Government Approved Registered Valuer provided a reasonable basis for the bifurcation. The Tribunal emphasized that the tax authorities did not identify any defects in the valuation report.
5. Assessment of Aggregate Gains as Long-term and Short-term Capital Gains:
The assessee contended that the gains from the sale should be assessed as long-term capital gains for the land and short-term capital gains for the superstructure. The Tribunal agreed, citing various judicial precedents that supported the bifurcation of gains when selling composite assets. The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly computed the capital gains by apportioning the sale consideration based on the valuation report.
6. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D:
The assessee challenged the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D. The Tribunal noted that this issue was consequential to the main issues and should be recomputed accordingly based on the revised assessment.
7. Validity and Reasonableness of the Appellate and Assessment Orders:
The assessee argued that the appellate and assessment orders were against the facts and evidence on record, illegal, invalid, unreasonable, and perverse. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the tax authorities had not properly appreciated the facts and the terms of the Development Agreement. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and accepted the assessee's computation of capital gains.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that the bifurcation of sale consideration between land and building was reasonable and supported by a valuation report. The gains attributable to the land were to be assessed as long-term capital gains, and the gains from the superstructure as short-term capital gains. The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D was to be recomputed accordingly. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.
-
2007 (1) TMI 199
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest paid to National Stock Exchange.
2. Disallowance of short-term capital loss on the sale of shares of Panchmahal Cement.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Paid to National Stock Exchange:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 3,58,963 as interest paid to National Stock Exchange, treated as a payment on capital account. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenses, considering it as a payment related to the initial security deposit necessary to commence business. The assessee argued that the interest was paid after commencing business and should be allowed as a business expense under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not provide relief. The counsel for the assessee cited legal precedents to support the argument that the interest should be treated as a business expense. However, the tribunal upheld the disallowance, emphasizing that the interest payment was linked to the initial security deposit for commencing business, and the concession by the National Stock Exchange was part of the security deposit. The tribunal distinguished the cited legal cases, stating that the facts were not analogous to the current case. Therefore, the appeal on this ground was rejected.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Short-Term Capital Loss on Sale of Shares:
The assessee claimed a short-term capital loss of Rs. 36,613 from the sale of shares of Panchmahal Cement. The Assessing Officer raised doubts about the transaction as none of the companies involved transferred the shares in their name. The tribunal, after reviewing the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), found no merit in the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to substantiate the loss in the share transaction, leading to the rejection of this ground of appeal.
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest paid to National Stock Exchange, considering it a capital expense, and rejected the claim for short-term capital loss on the sale of shares of Panchmahal Cement due to lack of evidence supporting the transaction. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in its entirety.
-
2007 (1) TMI 198
Deduction of tax at Source - Payments made after moving an application u/s 195(2) - No Objection Certificate with regard to remittance of payment - Assessee in default u/s 201 - Charging Of interest u/s 201(1A) - limitation for exercising the powers in passing order u/s 201 - HELD THAT:- This order of the Tribunal was passed on 1-12-1995 and still holding the field on the issue. It is followed recently in the case of Workhardt Life Science Ltd.[2005 (6) TMI 550 - ITAT MUMBAI]. From the order of Workhardt Life Science Ltd. it reveals that ITAT Delhi has also followed the Raymond Woollen Mills order in the case of Sahara Airlines v. Dy. CIT[2002 (2) TMI 319 - ITAT DELHI-E]. In the case of Indian Rayon for assessment year 199495. ITAT, Mumbai again followed the order of M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills and held that an order u/s 201 ought to be passed within 4 years.
Thus, respectfully following all these orders we hold that action of Assessing Officer treating the assessee in default for the remittance made prior to 31-3-1998 is barred by limitation. Accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer not to treat the assessee in default for the payments made prior to 31-3-1998. This ground is partly allowed. Since payments have been made after 31-3-1998 hence we have to decide the issue on merit also.
No Objection Certificate with regard to remittance of payment of first contract - In the present case the assessee contended that it has obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) of the Act for remitting the payment relating to the first contract and, therefore, it believed that for making similar payment it is not necessary to approach the Assessing Officer for similar payments. If this argument is accepted then some other assessee would say that in case of 'A', Assessing Officer has permitted the remittance of payment without deducting the tax his contract is also similar to that of 'A', hence he is not obliged to approach the Assessing Officer. In that situation the very purpose of the section would otiose. The Act imposes the authority for permitting an assessee to remit the payment without deducting tax in the Assessing Officer and not in any other person. The powers and discretions of Assessing Officer cannot be substituted with the belief of an assessee.
Therefore, on the basis of this belief we cannot hold that assessee is justified for not deducting the tax while remitting the amount to non-resident. This argument of the assessee is rejected.
DDIT of recovering the tax - Here the assessee has not deducted the tax while making the payment for the contracts relating to second phase. Thus assessee cannot draw any benefit from this decision and it is not the duty of the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether the recipient has paid the tax or not before passing order under section 201 read with section 195. More particularly Article 5 of the contract, between assessee M/s. Toyo postulate the mode of payment of the contract price and how to discharge the tax liability etc., it is worth to note this clause (d) of sub-clause (8) of Article 5.
Thus it was the obligation of the assessee to ascertain tax liability etc. while making the payments. The assessee has not deducted the TDS, therefore, we do not find any merit in this argument of the assessee and Ground No. 4 is rejected.
Determination of appropriate sum chargeable out of remittance - towards contract for offshore design for phase one of the project - No Objection Certificate for payment without deduction of TDS - From the record it revealed that while making payment for the contracts relating to Phase-I assessee has moved an application u/s 195(2) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued No Objection Certificate for making the remittance without deducting tax. The ld. D.R. at the time of hearing pointed out that it is not an order passed u/s 195(2) of the Act, it is simply a No Objection Certificate authorizing the assessee to make the payment. It is for facilitating the assessee from rigors of RBI guidelines etc. However, we have gone through the application of the assessee available at the paper book. It is an application moved u/s 195(2) of the Act.
It is immaterial how the Assessing Officer processed this application and issued a No Objection Certificate for making the remittance without making TDS. Therefore, as far as for the payment made for Phase-I the assessee cannot be treated in default u/s 201 of the Act because it has applied u/s 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, before the Assessing Officer prior to remitting the payment. The ld. Assessing Officer shall recompute the liability of the assessee and exclude all those amounts for which assessee has moved application u/s 195(2) of the Act and no No Objection Certificate was issued by the Assessing Officer. Hence ground No. 6 is partly allowed, whereas Ground No. 5 is rejected.
Non-deduction of TDS in respect of delayed payment charges remitted for crude oil purchase - We find that ld. first appellate authority has recorded a finding of fact that assessee failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that the payments made to the aforesaid parties are in the nature or penalty charges fir delayed payment. The ld. first appellate authority further on the basis of the agreement for supply of crude oil observed that payment of interest is for delay in payment of purchase price. In this connection clause 2(c) of Part-II of the agreement with Texco International has been referred by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of ld. counsel for the assessee. On facts it has been held that the delayed payment charges are nothing but in the nature of interest.
We summarize the result as under:- (i) The action of Assessing Officer for treating the assessee in default for the payments made prior to 31-3-1998 are barred by limitation as provided in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills[1995 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B], therefore, assessee should not be treated in default qua those payments and necessary relief be granted to the assessee.
(ii) The payments made after moving an application u/s 195(2) and on issuance of Certificate of No Objection by the Assessing Officer the assessee should not be treated in default. The ld. Assessing Officer shall carry out this exercise afresh and exclude all those payments for which No Objection Certificates were issued while holding the assessee in default.
(iii) With regard to payment made to Core Laboratories, i.e., an amount of Rs. 1,53,665, ld. Assessing Officer shall re-decide this issue in the light of Tribunal's decision rendered in the case of McKinsey & Co. Inc. (Philippines) [2005 (10) TMI 416 - ITAT MUMBAI].
(iv) Except the above modification we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A).
(v) As far as the appeal relating to charging of interest u/s 201(1A), it is consequential in nature and after carrying out the above exercise ld. Assessing Officer shall grant consequential relief to the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for want of COD approval and both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2007 (1) TMI 197
Issues involved: Denial of depreciation on Membership Card issued by the Bombay Stock Exchange.
For ITA No. 7804/Mum/2003:
The assessee appealed against the denial of depreciation on the Membership Card issued by the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had rejected the claim for depreciation. The main contention was whether the Membership Card qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that the Membership Card was an intangible asset used for business purposes and hence depreciation should be allowed. The Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 32 which allow depreciation for tangible and intangible assets used for business purposes. It emphasized that depreciation is meant to compensate for the decrease in value of assets over time due to wear, deterioration, or obsolescence. The Tribunal highlighted that for depreciation to be claimed, the asset must be capable of diminishing in value. Ownership of the asset is also crucial for claiming depreciation. The Tribunal referred to previous court decisions and affirmed that the Membership Card issued by a Stock Exchange qualifies as a capital asset. However, mere existence of a capital asset is not enough; it must also be shown that the assessee owns the asset and uses it for business purposes. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Departmental authorities and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision based on these observations.
For ITA No. 7805/Mum./2003:
The issue raised by the assessee in this appeal was identical to that in ITA No. 7804/Mum./2003 regarding the denial of depreciation on the Membership Card issued by the Bombay Stock Exchange. Following the decision made for the first appeal, the Tribunal also remanded this issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The appeal filed by the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2007 (1) TMI 196
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of reassessment proceedings.
2. Ignoring directions of CIT(A) in the appeal of the director.
3. Non-presentation of Shri Budhi Parkash Bali for cross-examination.
4. Non-supply of evidence and findings regarding impugned payments.
5. Ignoring evidence of agreement and decree of the Delhi High Court.
6. Ignoring directions regarding contract receipts and profit element.
7. Failure to relate alleged receipts to specific contract sections.
8. Legal power to sell the property under the Transfer of Property Act.
9. Non-adjudication of total alleged receipts by the Assessing Officer.
10. Misstatement regarding attendance and submissions.
11. Addition of Rs. 15,21,697.
12. Additional ground regarding invoking section 150(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings:
The assessee contested the initiation of reassessment proceedings, arguing that reasons for reopening were recorded without assessment records. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was valid under section 150(1) of the Income-tax Act, as the notice was issued to give effect to the findings of the Tribunal in the case of Mohan Lal Mangotra. The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice was valid even if it was sanctioned by the JCIT, as section 2(16) defined "Commissioner" to include JCIT.
2. Ignoring Directions of CIT(A) in the Appeal of the Director:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer ignored the directions of CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal of the director, Shri Mohan Mangotra. The Tribunal found that the issue was already addressed by the Tribunal in the case of Mohan Lal Mangotra, where it was held that the addition should be made in the hands of the companies.
3. Non-Presentation of Shri Budhi Parkash Bali for Cross-Examination:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not present Shri Budhi Parkash Bali for cross-examination. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument, as the issue was already addressed in the earlier Tribunal order.
4. Non-Supply of Evidence and Findings Regarding Impugned Payments:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer did not supply evidence regarding impugned payments. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had sufficient evidence, including seized documents and statements, to support the addition.
5. Ignoring Evidence of Agreement and Decree of the Delhi High Court:
The assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer ignored the agreement with Shri Budhi Parkash Bali and the decree of the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal found that the agreement dated 29-11-1999 was not relevant as it was much later than the search date of 7-4-1995.
6. Ignoring Directions Regarding Contract Receipts and Profit Element:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer ignored directions regarding contract receipts and only the profit element being chargeable to tax. The Tribunal held that in property transactions, the entire amount of on-money received represents unaccounted income, and not just the profit element.
7. Failure to Relate Alleged Receipts to Specific Contract Sections:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer failed to relate the alleged receipts to specific contract sections. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had correctly apportioned the amounts received from the sale of shops/offices.
8. Legal Power to Sell the Property Under the Transfer of Property Act:
The assessee argued that the company had no legal power to sell the property under the Transfer of Property Act. The Tribunal found that the agreement dated 15-12-1991 provided the companies with the right to sell 40% of the constructed area if Shri Bali failed to make the payment.
9. Non-Adjudication of Total Alleged Receipts by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer did not adjudicate the total alleged receipts. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had correctly made the addition based on the evidence available.
10. Misstatement Regarding Attendance and Submissions:
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer misstated that no one attended the last hearing and no submissions were received. The Tribunal did not find this argument relevant to the core issues of the case.
11. Addition of Rs. 15,21,697:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 15,21,697. The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding that the assessee failed to prove that the amount was received in earlier assessment years and not in the year under consideration.
12. Additional Ground Regarding Invoking Section 150(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The assessee raised an additional ground that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking section 150(1) for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal found that the notice under section 148 was correctly issued to give effect to the Tribunal's findings in the case of Mohan Lal Mangotra.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 15,21,697, finding no error in the order of the CIT(A).
-
2007 (1) TMI 194
Issues:
1. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act.
2. Violation of natural justice in the Tribunal's decision.
3. Discretionary power of the High Court to entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies.
Issue 1: Availability of alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226, challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed duty demand but reduced the penalty. The Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act, making the writ petition not maintainable. The High Court noted that the petitioner did not show any special circumstances for bypassing the statutory reference application. The Court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy should generally preclude the High Court from interfering unless strong grounds or exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Issue 2: Violation of natural justice in the Tribunal's decision
The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to consider their submissions, constituting a violation of natural justice. However, the Court found that there was no evidence of the Tribunal denying an opportunity of hearing or violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner's argument that the Tribunal did not consider various submissions was not accepted as a violation of natural justice. The Court highlighted that the discretionary power to grant relief under Article 226 should be exercised judiciously, especially when alternative remedies are available.
Issue 3: Discretionary power of the High Court to entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies
The High Court discussed various precedents emphasizing the discretionary nature of the power to grant relief under Article 226. It noted that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from granting relief if exceptional circumstances warrant it. The Court cited cases where the hierarchy of appeals provided by statute required parties to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court. Exceptions to the exhaustion of statutory remedies were noted, such as when the proceedings are ultra vires or violate principles of natural justice. The Court highlighted that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not compulsion.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Excise Act, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the High Court's power to entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies. The Court underscored the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and demonstrating exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing such remedies.
-
2007 (1) TMI 193
Issues involved: Challenge to order refusing waiver of interest by Settlement Commission in a customs and central excise case.
Summary:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing parts for Railways, challenged the Settlement Commission's order refusing waiver of interest on duty amount. The petitioner admitted liability but sought immunity from interest and penalty. The Commission granted immunity from penalty but not interest, leading to the challenge. The respondents contended the petitioner cannot challenge only part of the order to delay payment. The High Court heard arguments from both sides and noted the non-speaking nature of the Commission's order. The petitioner's counsel cited precedents where full waiver of interest was granted in similar cases. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions, noting the lack of reasons for denying interest waiver. Citing a Bombay High Court case, the Court decided to remit the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration, considering the inconsistency in decisions and lack of reasoning in the present case. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Commission's order and directing the matter to be reconsidered for waiver of interest, asking the petitioner to appear before the Commission for further proceedings.
-
2007 (1) TMI 192
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding recovery of excise duty, waiver of pre-deposit, compliance with orders, and financial capacity of the assessee.
Summary:
1. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing excisable items, faced demands for unpaid duty. Commissioner (Appeals) found recovery of amount but non-payment to the Department, leading to penalty imposition. CESTAT concluded the amount was recoverable under Section 11D of the Act. The assessee challenged this decision.
2. A Division Bench set aside CESTAT's order, emphasizing the need for adjudication based on parties' stands. The case was remanded to CESTAT for reconsideration of the waiver application. CESTAT directed the assessee to deposit the determined amount, but the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act.
3. The assessee approached the High Court multiple times, seeking relief and recalling of orders. The Court noted the strategic timing of the application under the Sick Industrial Companies Act and dismissed the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.
4. After considering arguments, the High Court upheld CESTAT's order, finding no legal infirmity. The assessee failed to show financial incapacity or valid excuse for non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues and outcomes at each stage of the case.
-
2007 (1) TMI 191
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of orders by the second respondent.
2. Classification, valuation, and determination of excise duty.
3. Modus operandi of issuing multiple sets of invoices.
4. Findings based on non-maintenance of private records and blow room practices.
5. Opportunity to rebut findings.
6. Mis-declaration of goods and fiscal statutes.
7. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Rejection of reference under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Quashing of Orders by the Second Respondent:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders of the second respondent in Final Order Nos. 572, 571/99, dated 16-3-1999, and Ref. Order Nos. 101, 100/99, dated 5-10-1999. The petitioner argued that the second respondent's findings were based on reasoning independent of the first respondent's order, which was not the basis of the show cause notice or adjudication.
2. Classification, Valuation, and Determination of Excise Duty:
The case involved the classification and valuation of polyester/viscose yarn and the determination of excise duty. The petitioner was found to be adopting a modus operandi of issuing multiple sets of invoices, leading to discrepancies in excise duty paid. The Tribunal confirmed the differential duty of Rs. 44,32,897.61 and imposed penalties on the company's directors.
3. Modus Operandi of Issuing Multiple Sets of Invoices:
The authorities discovered that the petitioner issued proper delivery orders and invoices to customers while maintaining separate invoices with incorrect descriptions for office purposes. This resulted in paying lesser excise duty than required. The Tribunal found it hard to believe that such collusion could continue over a long period under the supervision of an experienced resident director.
4. Findings Based on Non-Maintenance of Private Records and Blow Room Practices:
The petitioner contended that the findings on non-maintenance of private records and blow room practices were based on no evidence. However, the Tribunal did not solely rely on these findings. It observed that the petitioner did not follow the industry practice of assigning lot numbers at the blow room stage, which affected the accuracy of raw material accounts.
5. Opportunity to Rebut Findings:
The petitioner argued that they were not given an opportunity to rebut the findings based on new grounds. The Tribunal, however, provided sufficient reasons for rejecting this contention, stating that the petitioner invited the observations by raising specific contentions.
6. Mis-Declaration of Goods and Fiscal Statutes:
The mis-declaration of two lots was established by the chemical analyst's report and witness statements. The fiscal statute contained measures for addressing mis-declaration, non-declaration, and under-valuation. The Tribunal upheld the findings of mis-declaration and manipulation of invoices.
7. Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The Court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is not an appellate jurisdiction but a review of the Tribunal's order for arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fide. The Court found that all due formalities were followed, and the petitioner's partial acceptance of invoice manipulation was considered.
8. Rejection of Reference under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioner sought to refer questions of law to the High Court under Section 35G. The Tribunal rejected the reference application, stating that the issues pertained to classification, valuation, and determination of duty, which are not referable under Section 35G. The Court upheld this finding as per the statutory provisions.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, with the Court finding no grounds for interference in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's findings were based on substantial evidence and proper adjudication procedures. The rejection of the reference application under Section 35G was in accordance with the statutory provisions.
............
|
9911796707
