|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1657 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1597
Challenge to assessment order - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand - violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner also remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand - HELD THAT:- The petitioner averred in the affidavit that he carried on trade of electrical goods on a small scale and that his consultant had not brought to his knowledge the initiation of proceedings against him. While this explanation is not wholly convincing since the petitioner is under an obligation to monitor the GST portal on an on going basis, it should not be lost sight of that the tax demand was confirmed without the petitioner being heard. The petitioner has also remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand.
Solely for the purpose of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the tax demand, the impugned order is set aside on condition that the receipt of 10% of the disputed tax demand be verified before re-assessment is undertaken - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1596
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not aware of the impugned order until receipt of an urgent notice dated 23.02.2024 by post - no Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed in respect of the purchase of the car since such purchase was not related to the petitioner's business - HELD THAT:- The record shows that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice or participate in proceedings culminating in the impugned order. As a consequence, the petitioner was unable to contend and establish that no ITC was availed of in respect of the purchase of the BMW car - the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. Since the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand, the interest of justice warrants providing the petitioner with such opportunity, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to with in a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1595
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to assessment order - expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards price difference was treated as taxable supply under the applicable GST enactments - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned order, it is evident that tax demands under six heads were considered therein. Proceedings were preceded by a show cause notice to which the petitioner replied. A personal hearing was admittedly provided to the petitioner. The issue on which learned counsel focused attention pertains to price difference in relation to steel products sold by the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the adjudication of this issue would entail consideration of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conveniently addressed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The impugned order was issued on 21.12.2023 and the period of limitation, without condonation, expired on or about 21.03.2024. The petitioner is still within the condonable period. In these circumstances, it is just and appropriate that if the petitioner files an appeal within a reasonable period, such appeal be considered and disposed of on merits.
The petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1594
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1593
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1592
Challenge to assessment order - personal hearing was not offered after receipt of the petitioner's reply - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record include the petitioner's reply on 20.06.2023. Such reply was referred to in the impugned order and treated as a reply to the show cause notice. Although the petitioner is not blameless in as much as much as the petitioner did not reply to the intimation within a reasonable time or reply to the show cause notice, in view of breach of the mandatory requirement of subsection (4) of Section 75, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned order dated 09.10.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit any documents in support of the reply with in a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1591
Challenge to assessment order - assessing officer failed to act in accordance with the mandate under Section 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - opportunity of hearing provided or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The documents on record evince that principles of natural justice were adhered to not only by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand, but by also providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner responded both to the intimation and show cause and even submitted written synopsis before the assessing officer. The petitioner does not assert that documents submitted by him were disregarded in course of assessment. In these facts and circumstances, no case is made out to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petition is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1590
Challenge to allotment done in favour of O.P. No.4 - failure to satisfy requirement of the tender documents more particularly the Sealed Limited Tender Enquiry Notice - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner has not satisfied the requirement as per the tender documents, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity to have been committed by the tendering authority.
The writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1589
Seeking direction to the respondent to allow the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the GST - HELD THAT:- With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today. 4. Petitioner applied for cancellation of the GST registration on 27.12.2023. However, a query was raised on 31.01.2023 seeking additional information to which as per the petitioner reply has been duly submitted, however, the application has not yet been disposed of.
The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the GST registration within a period of four weeks from today.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1588
Violation of principles of natural justice - order u/s 73 of the OGST Act passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax while passing the order dated 14.11.2022 has not been given opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2022 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
Therefore, this Court remits back to the very same authority to rehear the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in KHANI KHYATIGRASTA GRAMYA COMMITTEE VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX & GST AND ANOTHER [2023 (11) TMI 1220 - ORISSA HIGH COURT].
The writ petition stands disposed of by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1587
Territorial Jurisdiction - Challenge to impugned Summons dated 26.02.2024 issued to the petitioner’s establishment located in Pune, Maharashtra - Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - present writ petition has been filed before this Court only on the ground that the registered office of the petitioner’s establishment is at Hyderabad and the requirement under the summons was for checking the liability of all the units under the petitioner’s establishment (Pan India) - HELD THAT:- The summons to the petitioner’s establishment has been issued at the office situated at Pune, Maharashtra and the office of respondent No.3, who has issued the summons, is situated at Mumbai, Maharashtra. As both the addresses, at which the summons has been issued and the authority who has issued the summons being located in the State of Maharashtra itself, it is opined that the jurisdiction for challenging the impugned summons dated 26.02.2024 would not lie with the High Court for the State of Telangana, but would be before the High Court which has the territorial jurisdiction over Pune as well as Mumbai.
The present Writ Petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available to them under law.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1586
Validity of notices of reassessment - Compliance of reassessment notices with the Faceless Scheme of Assessment - whether a notice u/s 148, if issued by the JAO, would sustain in light of the scheme formulated in accordance with Section 151A ? - whether the Section 148 notice was rendered invalid on the ground of having been issued by the JAO? - HELD THAT:- As we view Explanation 1 of Section 148 of the Act, it becomes apparent that an assessing officer could form an opinion that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the basis of (a) information which comes to light through the RMS (b) an audit objection (c) information received under agreements with nations (d) information made available to the JAO in terms of a scheme notified under Section 135A or (e) information on which further action is warranted in consequence to an order of a Tribunal or a Court. It is thus manifest that apart from information which is made available to the JAO pursuant to the RMS, the Act contemplates a decision to commence reassessment also being founded or based upon other inputs which are noticed in clauses (a) to (e) of Explanation 1. In essence, the Act permits reassessment not only on RMS data but also on a variety of other specified inputs ensuring a broader foundation for initiating reassessment.
In terms of Explanation 2 to Section 148, information that may come to the fore consequent to a search or survey, is also, by virtue of the legal fiction incorporated therein, deemed to be that which would constitute “information” and be viewed as suggestive of income chargeable to income having escaped assessment. The material that may be gathered in the course of a search or survey also thus constitutes information which comes to be placed in the hands of the JAO and which may form the basis for formation of opinion of whether reassessment is merited.
"Information" relevant for assessment - In cases where questions of capital gains are at issue, the AO stands conferred with the power to make a reference to a Valuation Officer for an estimation of value, including the fair market value of any asset, property or investment. This power which stands individually conferred upon the AO stands enshrined in Section 142A of the Act. TOLA also introduced Section 142B and which in turn empowered the Union Government to frame a scheme for the purposes of faceless inquiry or valuation. In exercise of that power, the Union Government has framed a scheme which came to be notified on 30 March 2022.
Origins of faceless assessment - A careful reading of that clause shows that the draftsman has used a comma immediately after the phrase “shall be through automated allocation”. Yet another comma appears after the phrase “for issuance of notice”. It thus appears to have been the clear intent of the author to separate and segregate the phases of initiation of action in accordance with RMS, the formation of opinion whether circumstances warrant action under Section 148 of the Act being undertaken by issuance of notice and the actual undertaking of assessment itself.
Beyond the specific use of punctuation within Clause 3, a comprehensive reading of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme 2022, supported by the extensive material presented by the respondents, bolsters the clear intent underlying each phase of the faceless assessment process.
As we had noticed in the preceding parts of this decision, the RMS and the Insight Portal pushes information to the JAO and is principally not concerned with faceless assessment at all. The RMS essentially enables the JAO to firstly examine the veracity of disclosures made and examine the return against various parameters and information which has been collated by the Directorate of Systems. It thus provides the JAO with an insight in respect of various transactions to which the assessee may be connected as well as data pertaining to that assessee which has otherwise been aggregated and mapped on the basis of material existing on the system of the respondents. The respondents would, therefore, appear to be correct in their submission that when material comes to be placed in the hands of the JAO by the RMS, it would consequently be entitled to initiate the process of reassessment by following the procedure prescribed under Section 148A. If after consideration of the objections that are preferred, it stands firm in its opinion that income was likely to have escaped assessment, it would transmit the relevant record to the NFAC. It is at that stage and on receipt of the said material by NFAC that the concepts of automated allocation and faceless distribution would come into play. The actual assessment would thus be conducted in a faceless manner and in accordance with an allocation that the NFAC would make. This, in our considered opinion, would be the only legally sustainable construction liable to be accorded to the scheme. Our conclusion would thus strike a harmonious balance between the evaluation of information made available to an AO, the preliminary consideration of information for the purposes of formation of opinion and its ultimate assessment in a faceless manner.
We are also, in this regard, guided by the principles of beneficial construction and thus avoiding an interpretation that would render portions of the Act or the Faceless Assessment Scheme superfluous or ineffective should be avoided. To assert that the JAO’s powers become redundant under the faceless assessment framework would conflict with beneficial construction, as it would undermine provisions specifically established to support comprehensive data analysis and informed decision-making, such as the JAO’s access to RMS and Insight Portal information.
We are fully cognizant of the contrarian view which was expressed in this respect in Hexaware Technologies and which stands reflected in para 36 of the report which has been extracted hereinabove. However, for reasons assigned in the preceding parts of this decision, we find ourselves unable to concur with the interpretation accorded by the Bombay High Court upon Clause 3 of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme 2022. As was noted by us earlier, Clause 3 clearly contemplates the initial enquiry and formation of opinion to reassess being part of one defined process followed by actual assessment in a faceless manner. It thus divides the process of reassessment into two stages and when viewed in that light it is manifest that it strikes a just balance between the obligation of the JAO to scrutinise information and the conduct of assessment itself through a faceless allocation. The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework. This we so hold and observe since we have, principally, been unable to countenance a situation where the JAO stands completely deprived of the jurisdiction to evaluate data and material that may be placed in its hands.
We, accordingly and for all the aforesaid reasons find ourselves unable to sustain the challenge as addressed. The contention that the impugned notices are liable be quashed merely on the ground of the same having been issued by the JAO is thus negated. Accordingly, while we dismiss these writ petitions
-
2024 (10) TMI 1585
Scope and extent of the power which the Income-tax Settlement Commission could exercise - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission [ITSC] as granted immunity to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from prosecution and penalty proceedings - whether it would be open for the writ petitioner to assail the order of the ITSC only to the extent of according immunity from prosecution and penalty as contemplated u/s 245H - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case, faced with a situation where the ITSC had at no stage come to conclude that the applications as made were liable to be rejected either on the ground that the respondents had failed to make a full and true disclosure or that they had failed to cooperate in the proceedings. If these twin conditions were found to be satisfied for the purposes of Section 245D (4), we fail to appreciate how the said issue could be questioned or reagitated while examining the validity of the discretionary power exercised by the ITSC u/s 245H.
In our considered opinion, once the condition of full and true disclosure is held to be satisfied, the same would not partake a separate or different hue for the purposes of Section 245H. Any view to the contrary if taken, would surely result in an incongruous situation arising. This since it would constrain the Court to hold that the test of full and true disclosure applies differently for the purposes of computation and grant of immunity. We bear in consideration the indubitable fact that while the power to grant immunity stands enshrined in a separate provision in Chapter XIX-A, the said power is exercised contemporaneously by the ITSC while disposing of an application for settlement. The statute does not prescribe the power of computation and grant of immunity being exercised on the basis of tests and precepts which could be said to be separate or distinguishable.
Section 245H postulates the power of immunity being liable to be invoked identically on a full and true disclosure of income and cooperation rendered before the ITSC. Thus, both Section 245D (4) as well as Section 245H are premised on identical considerations. It would thus be incorrect to uphold the contention of a perceived dichotomy between the opinion with respect to full and true disclosure under Section 245D and that which would guide Section 245H.
Regard must also be had to the fact that the Act undoubtedly confers a finality and conclusiveness upon orders made by the ITSC. This becomes evident from a reading of Section 245I and which proscribes any matter or issue which stands concluded by an order of the ITSC being reopened in any proceedings under the Act. That the Legislature clearly intended to imbue finality upon an order of the ITSC is further underscored by Section 245I using the expression “save as otherwise provided ”. Thus, an order Chapter XIX-A could be reviewed or reopened only on grounds set out therein and on no other.
Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra [2023 (9) TMI 1231 - SUPREME COURT] held that the essential ingredients liable to be borne in consideration by the ITSC for the purposes of grant of immunity are cooperation by the applicant in the computation of total income in the settlement proceedings and a full and true disclosure of income being made. The settlement is premised on a full and true disclosure before the ITSC irrespective of the disclosures or discoveries that may be made before an Assessing Officer.
Income-tax Settlement Commission is conferred wide powers by virtue of the provisions enshrined in Chapter XIX-A to examine and evaluate all aspects relating to an application for settlement that may come to be made before it. By virtue of the statutory powers so conferred, the Income-tax Settlement Commission's jurisdiction to examine and inquire is not confined merely to the disclosures that an applicant may choose to make. This is evident from the statutory provisions empowering and enabling it to call for reports from the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner as also the framing of directions for further inquiry and investigation being undertaken. Chapter XIX-A in our considered opinion thus enables the Income-tax Settlement Commission to holistically examine all aspects that may be said to arise from the application submitted for its consideration and enabling it to accord a full and complete closure to all disputes.
The power conferred upon the Income-tax Settlement Commission not being confined merely to the matters spoken of and covered by the application but also extending to any other matter relating to the case was an aspect which came to be highlighted in a decision handed down by a Division Bench of the court in Tahiliani Design P. Ltd. [2021 (2) TMI 106 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Thus we find that the order of the ITSC clearly does not merit interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Invocation of the principle of severability - The power to sever and to disgorge a part which is offending and unsustainable could be wielded, provided it does not impact the very foundation of an order. However, and as we had noticed hereinabove, the considerations for the framing of an order u/s 245D (4) and 245H do not proceed on a consideration of factors which may be said to be distinct or independent. Both are informed by and founded upon cooperation and full and true disclosure and which are the essential prerequisites for computation of the settlement amount as well as consideration of grant of immunity. The aforenoted two factors thus constitute the very substratum of an application for settlement.
Interfering with the grant of immunity on grounds as suggested by the writ petitioner would essentially amount to the Court questioning the validity of the acceptance of the application itself by the ITSC. If the twin statutory conditions were found to be satisfied and thus meriting an order of settlement u/s 245D (4) being rendered, the position would not vary or undergo a change when it come to the question of grant of immunity. We thus find ourselves unable to countenance the challenge as raised. WP dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1584
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 68 on share premium received by the petitioner from Gold Singapore - reassessment proceedings had been initiated primarily for the reason that Gold Singapore does not appear to be carrying out any business activities in Singapore and has been floated to act as a conduit for further investments in Indian companies - HELD THAT:- As in the assessment order AY 2012-13, AO has accepted the transaction of share application money/share capital received from Gold Singapore without any addition in that regard and also accepted the status of the holding company i.e. Gold Singapore. The identity and creditworthiness of Gold Singapore and the genuineness of the transaction has been accepted by the Department while framing assessments for AY 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2020-2021.
The transaction of investment of share capital in the petitioner company has been duly examined in subsequent assessment years and accepted in completed assessments/reassessments under Section 143 (3) - Once the nature and source of receipts have been satisfactorily explained/proved and AO has not contradicted the explanation/information given by the assessee, there lies no cause for initiating the reassessment action for the impugned AYs 2008-09 & 2011-12.
Thus, we are of the opinion that the reasons for initiation of the impugned assessment proceedings do not survive and therefore the impugned notices issued u/s 148 of the Act and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1583
Validity of reassessment proceedings - applicability of Section 151 of the provisions of the Act as the sanction has not been granted by the appropriate authority as specified under the said provisions - Legality of jurisdiction and assessment orders and notices issued under the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- Once the petitioner has availed of an alternate remedy as provided under the Income Tax Act, namely of a substantive appeal being filed, and if the assessment order as also the notices issued to the petitioner prior thereto under Section 148A and under Section 148 are contrary to the substantive provisions of Section 151A and Section 151 of the Act, as interpreted by this Court in Hexaware [2024 (5) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Siemens [2023 (9) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Appellate Authority as also the Revisionary Authority, being bound by the said decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, need to consider such legal position. Thus, the petitioner is not precluded from raising all such contentions, as raised before us in the present proceedings, before the said authority.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the proceedings which are pending before the CIT (A) as also the Revisionary proceedings be decided considering the contentions of the petitioner, namely, as to whether the impugned assessment order as also the notice under Section 148 of the Act is illegal when tested on the law as declared by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
An approach ought not to be followed that when the appellate authority is already seized with the proceedings, we entertain writ petitions to adjudicate what can certainly be adjudicated by the appellate authority, considering the said decisions of this Court.
As rightly pointed an approach otherwise would create a situation that all matters which are pending before the Appellate Authority, and which are supposed to be decided in accordance with law involving issues on applicability of the decisions of this Court in disposing of the proceedings, would be required to be entertained by this Court. Certainly, such approach cannot be adopted by the Court. We are hence of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the assessee pursues such pending proceedings as already filed before the appropriate Appellate Authority or Revisionary Authority.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded to entertain the present proceedings which assail the assessment order when appeal is already filed by the petitioner as also the revision proceedings are pending.
We find substance in Petitioner ’s contention that if prima facie the petitioner is correct that the impugned assessment order as also the notice issued u/s 148 if it is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Hexaware and Siemens (supra), the same ought not to be given effect, till the appellate proceedings and revisionary proceedings are decided.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1582
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessment order u/s 143 (3) wherein no addition was made on the issue of tax deducted at source and cash deposits - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed reply to the notice issued u/s 142 (1) of the Act during the regular course of assessment and after considering the same, the assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) of the Act.
On a bare perusal of the reasons recorded, it is apparent that the respondent AO has assumed jurisdiction on perusal of the assessment record, in absence of any fresh tangible material which was not considered during the course of regular assessment proceedings which would amount to mere change of opinion. Therefore, as held in case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] the AO could not have assumed the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
In view of above settled legal position, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1581
Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - defective notice u/s 274 - Tribunal has on facts found that the notice which was served upon the Assessee for seeking his explanation was not clear and unambiguous and Assessing Authority concerned had not recorded its satisfaction with regard to one of the two limbs or on both the limbs indicated in clause (c) of sub-section 1 of Section 271 - HELD THAT:- Assessing Authority was itself not clear, whether it was a case of concealment of particulars of income by the Assessee or his failure to furnish correct particulars of such income - Assessee too was deprived of a clear opportunity to give the explanation in view of the confusion created by the Assessing Authority itself.
It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal, after relying upon the several precedents, came to the correct conclusion that it was a case where the Assessee had not given the proper opportunity to offer his explanation and, therefore, the impugned order of imposition of penalty was vitiated being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Tribunal also found fault with the requisite satisfaction which the Assessing Authority was required to arrive at before initiating the penalty proceedings.
Be that as it may, the order impugned before us does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, there is no case made out for interference with the judgment of the Tribunal - Decided against revenue.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1580
Maintainability of appeal on low tax affect - as submitted that the issue involved in the present case relates to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and would therefore fall in the exceptions - HELD THAT:- Firstly, as we accept the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent with regard to the case not falling within exception to clause l(ii) of para 3.1 which is only with respect to litigation arising out of disputes related to TDS/TCS matters in both domestic and international taxation charges, wherein disputes relating to appeals of international taxation charges with the applicability of provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement would fall. Even otherwise, the questions of law raised by the appellant in the present case stand adequately answered by the Apex Court in Engineering Analysis 2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT]
Review petitions having been already dismissed, we do not find any reason to further keep this case pending for adjudication. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1579
Revision u/s 263 - scrutiny assessment order u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- Insofar as the scrutiny assessment that has been made by the AO is concerned, as we have seen the order passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2019, where nothing has been stated as to what are all the inputs and documents which have been sought for under the scrutiny assessment order from the assessee and what are all the documents which have been filed by the assessee, whether those documents have been perused and verified and only thereafter the assessing officer has come to the conclusion to confirm the income as admitted under the return. These are the issues which ought to have been gone into by the assessing officer. But, those issues are conspicuously absent in the assessment order dated 30.12.2019.
The issues that have been found out by the revisional authority with regard to the increase of share premium to the extent of Rs. 14.84 Crores and also the non-disclosing of the source or non-verification of the source if it is disclosed by the assessee with regard to the cash deposits during demonetization period to the extent and also so much of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee are all the issues which had been found by the revisional authority. When those issues have not been verified or scrutinized properly by the assessing officer, there would be prejudice to the Revenue. Hence, the revisional authority has invoked the revisional power u/s 263(3), which of course, in the considered opinion of this Court, rightly.
Therefore, absolutely there is no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the revisional authority in passing the assessment order u/s 263 on 29.03.2022 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned herein.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1578
Rejection of stay petition filed u/s 220(6) - importance of considering prima facie case, financial stringency, and balance of convenience in stay petitions - HELD THAT:- The law on this aspect has been settled by this Court in its decision rendered in Kannammal Vs. Income Tax Officer [2019 (3) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as held that Circulars and Instructions as extracted above are in the nature of guidelines issued to assist the assessing authorities in the matter of grant of stay and cannot substitute or override the basic tenets to be followed in the consideration and disposal of stay petitions. The existence of a prima facie case for which some illustrations have been provided in the Circulars themselves, the financial stringency faced by an assessee and the balance of convenience in the matter constitute the 'trinity', so to say, and are indispensable in consideration of a stay petition by the authority. The Board has, while stating generally that the assessee shall be called upon to remit 20% of the disputed demand, granted ample discretion to the authority to either increase or decrease the quantum demanded based on the three vital factors to be taken into consideration.
The assessing officer has merely rejected the petition by way of a non-speaking order. Assessing Officer ought to have taken note of the conditions precedent for the grant of stay as well as the Circulars issued by the CBDT and passed a speaking order. Of course the petition seeking stay filed by the petitioner is itself cryptic.
The issue on this aspect is also covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LG Electronics India Private Limited [2022 (5) TMI 120 - SC ORDER]
Thus we set aside impugned order and AO is directed to pass orders de novo on the stay application filed by the petitioner in the light of the discussion as aforesaid.
........
|
9911796707
