|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1484 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 1184
Challenge to SCN issued by the respondent u/s 11-A of the Central Excise Act - issuance of a personal hearing notice after a significant delay - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, though replies were sent to the impugned show cause notice dated 11.12.2007 as early as in the year 2007 itself, the said replies have not been considered by the respondent in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 11-A(10)(11) of the Act. The respondent has failed to determine the amount of duty due from the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after giving due consideration to the replies sent by the petitioner to the show cause notice. Section 11-A(11) of the Act, also makes it clear that the respondent shall determine the amount of duty of excise payable by the petitioner within six months from the date of notice in respect of cases falling under sub-section(1); and within two years in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4).
In the case on hand, the respondent has not adhered to Section 11-A(11) of the Act and till date, they have failed to determine the amount of duty of excise payable by the petitioner pursuant to issuance of the impugned show cause notice dated 11.12.2007. After a lapse of more than 16 years, the respondent has sent a notice of personal hearing dated 28.07.2023 to the petitioner pertaining to the impugned show cause notice dated 11.12.2007, which is not legally permissible in law. Any proceeding initiated by the respondent without authority under law has to be set aside by this Court - In the instant case, personal hearing notice dated 28.07.2023 has been issued by the respondent without authority under law, that too, after a lapse of 16 years. Even though the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that due to an audit objection there was a delay in proceeding further after the issuance of show cause notice, the said submission has to be rejected by this Court, as, for no fault on the petitioner, they cannot be penalised without authority under law.
Conclusion - The impugned personal hearing notice dated 28.07.2023 is issued in violation of the statutory provisions and without authority under law.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1183
Rejection of present application for considering the additional grounds - demand for Basic Excise Duty (BED) and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) for the period from 15.01.2020 to 31.12.2021, along with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to reject the present application for considering the additional grounds. However, considering that the issue is also on sustainability of the demand as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the issues were not considered by the adjudicating authority, it is proper for this Tribunal to remand the matter to Adjudicating Authority.
As regards penalty and demand by invoking Rule 12(5) of the Central Excise Rules 2017, it is found that the appellant had challenged the Notification No. 3/2019-CE dated 06.07.2019 by filing Writ Petition No. 651/2020 and only consequent to the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Appellant had stopped payment of BED and NCCD, on the manufacture and clearance of Chewing Tobacco, with effect from 15.01.2020. They had also stopped filing the statutory returns in Form ER-1, for the said period. In such a situation, no finding can be given that the appellant had failed to file statutory returns to invoke Rule 12(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 2017 or failed to pay appropriate BED and NCCD during the impugned period on the manufacture and clearance of goods with an intent to evade payment of duty. Thus invoking the penal provision under Section 11AC (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demand under Rule 12(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 2017 are unsustainable.
Conclusion - i) The application for additional grounds is allowed. ii) The penalty under Section 11AC(1)(a) and the demand under Rule 12(5) were set aside. iii) The demand for BED and NCCD was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. iv) The adjudicating authority was directed to pass an appropriate order within three months, considering all issues and grounds raised by the appellant.
Application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1182
Classification of goods namely Student Almanac and teacher planner, Diaries, Workbook, Calendars, Note-Pads and Scrap books - to be classified under Chapter 49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Chapter 48 as “Articles of Paper or of Paper Board” and attract duty @ 12.5% ad valorem? - exemption from waste and scrap under N/N. 27/2011-CE dated 24.03.2011 - invocation of extended period of limitation - Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules of the Central Excise Rules on Director of the assessee.
Classification of Student Almanac and teacher planner - HELD THAT:- The Student Almanac is the same as a diary except that it is customized to meet the requirements of students of the particular school. Therefore, the information relevant to that school is printed in it. The submission of the learned counsel that since Student Almanac is used only by students of a particular school, it becomes a product of printing industry cannot be accepted. Undisputedly 90% of the space in the Student Almanac is left blank for students to write. Providing additional information relevant to the school does not make it a product of printing industry. The teacher planner, likewise is to help to make notes and, therefore, stand on the same footing - the submission of the assessee deserves to be rejected.
Waste and scrap - HELD THAT:- The only submission of the assessee with respect to waste and scrap is that since Student Almanac and teacher planner were exempted from payment of duty, the scrap generated also should be exempted by virtue of N/N. 27/2011-CE. The submission of the Revenue is that since Student Almanac and teacher planner and other products, such as, diaries, note pads were exigible to duty, the assessee was not entitled to exemption from waste and scrap. For the reasons stated above while dealing with classification of Student Almanac and teacher planner, the submission of the learned authorized representative deserves to be accepted and the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption on waste and scrap.
Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- There was no evidence of intention to evade payment of duty and suppression of facts because it was possible for the assessee to have entertained the belief that the Student Almanac and teacher planner were not exigible to duty and, therefore, to have NOT declared them in their excise returns - the question of limitation found in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the impugned order needs to be upheld in so far as this limitation is concerned. Consequently, the penalty under section 11AC was also correctly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules of the Central Excise Rules on Director of the assessee - HELD THAT:- In this case there is no confiscation of the goods nor is there any allegation that any Cenvat credit has been wrongly taken - the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the penalty on Shri Kishore Mittal under Rule 26 of the Rules.
Conclusion - i) Student Almanac and Teacher Planner are classifiable under Chapter 48 due to their primary purpose for writing, similar to diaries. ii) The denial of exemption for waste and scrap, as dutiable goods are manufactured alongside exempted goods upheld. iii) There are no evidence of intent to evade duty or suppress facts, supporting the decision to set aside the demand for the extended period. iv) The decision to set aside the penalty on the Director upheld, as the conditions for imposing a penalty under Rule 26 were not met.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1181
Taxable events or not - levy of Luxury Tax - allied activities conducted by the assessee, particularly those related to the operation of a beach resort and other tourism-related services - HELD THAT:- It is found that before the assessing officer, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate the claim.
The question as to whether the allied activities of the assessee would fall outside the taxable event under the Act is purely a matter of adjudication on facts. It was not open for the assessee to have produced the evidence for the 1st time before the tribunal. Even assuming that the assessee could have produced such evidence before the tribunal, the tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.
In this context, it is noted that despite the similar facts being presented before the tribunal in T.A.(L.T.) No. 29 of 2023, by order dated 22.2.2024, the very same officer who authored the judgment did not choose to accept the earlier orders which are impugned herein and remanded the matter back for consideration of the assessing officer.
Conclusion - In the light of the order passed in the above case wherein the assessing officer was given the liberty to consider the entire evidence on record, it is found that for the assessment years in question, i.e., 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, the matter should regain the attention of the assessment officer. Hence the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
The matter is remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1180
Constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 84 of the VAT Act - requirement of pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed tax to entertain an appeal - HELD THAT:- As the petitioner has already preferred an appeal and deposited Rs.68,14,980/- towards the disputed tax, respondent authorities being respondent nos.2 and 3 are requested to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and to dispose of the same within eight weeks from date of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1179
Scope of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - liability on the appellant to disburse the remaining consideration amount for sale of the flat payable to the complainant-respondent by the borrower.
Whether the appellant was liable to disburse the remaining consideration amount of Rs.31,00,000/- for the sale of the flat to the respondent? - HELD THAT:- The appellant, assuming any liability in this regard existed at all, taking the respondent’s case at the highest, could not have been saddled with having to pay more than what was envisaged under the Home Loan Agreement between the borrower and the appellant. In any event, the appellant’s liability under the Agreement for sale was restricted only to satisfying the dues of the complainant-respondent with ICICI Bank which sum was in fact quantified at Rs.17, 87, 763/- and, in any view of the matter, could not have exceeded Rs.23, 40, 000/-. Thus, the NCDRC could not have, under any circumstance, taken a view that the appellant was liable to pay Rs.31, 00, 000/- both to ICICI Bank as well as to the complainant-respondent, who was not a party to the ultimate sanction of the loan by the Home Loan Agreement, which was between the appellant and the borrower. Hence, the question is answered in the negative.
Whether the respondent qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? - HELD THAT:- The complainantrespondent cannot be said to be a ‘consumer’ under the Act as it had no privity of contract with the appellant, due regard being had to the totality of the factual matrix.
Condonation of delay in filing complaint - HELD THAT:- The purported Tripartite Agreement is dated 09.02.2008. The cause of action statedly had arisen in/by April/May, 2008. The respondent filed a complaint under the Act on 16.04.2018 - While the NCDRC is competent to condone any period of delay in filing a complaint beyond two years from the date when the cause of action arises, the discretion is circumscribed by twin conditions: (i) that the complainant satisfy the NCDRC that he had sufficient cause for not filing his complaint within such period, and; (ii) that the NCDRC record the reasons for condoning such delay. We have perused the ordersheets of the NCDRC pertaining to the complaint at hand. Neither reasons nor a formal order condoning delay is forthcoming, either in the ordersheets or in the Impugned Order - Delay cannot be condoned.
As vivid from Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v Aftab Singh, [2018 (12) TMI 1940 - SUPREME COURT] and M Hemalatha Devi [[2023 (10) TMI 1510 - SUPREME COURT], even in a consumer dispute under the Act, or for that matter, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arbitration, if provided for under the relevant agreement/document, can be opted for/resorted to, however, at the exclusive choice of the ‘consumer’ alone. As the appellant is not a ‘consumer’ in terms of the Act and the existence of the Tripartite Agreement is doubtful, we need not dwell further hereon.
Conclusion - i) The respondent is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, due to the lack of privity of contract with the appellant. ii) The appellant Is not liable to pay the full sale consideration of Rs.31,00,000/-, as the purported Tripartite Agreement did not establish such an obligation.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1178
Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - survey conducted in Jammu & Kashmir Bank u/s. 133A and only because the petitioner assessee has transacted with the said bank made a total of transaction of inward and outward remittance, thus concluded that the income has escaped the assessment - as decided by HC [2024 (5) TMI 227 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] impugned notice issued u/s.148 is nothing but amounts to change of opinion on the part of the respondent assessing officer and he has issued the impugned notice only on the borrowed satisfaction without there being any fresh tangible material to come to the prima facie conclusion that the income has escaped assessment. Thus the impugned show cause notices u/s. 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside. Assessee appeal allowed.
HELD THAT:- There is a gross delay of 181 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner.
Even otherwise, we see no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1177
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe - notice issued beyond a period of four years - long term capital gain on penny stocks - HELD THAT:- Since the assessment year involved is assessment year 2011-12 where the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the reasons so recorded do not contain a whisper of any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment and such reopening is beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, in view of the proviso to section 147, re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I T Act, 1961 is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. We, therefore, quash the re-assessment proceedings. Decided in favour of assessee.
Revision u/s 263 - AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) / 147 has made addition being the net amount of accommodation entries - commission @ 2% of such accommodation entries and which the assessee would have incurred for obtaining the accommodation entries was not added by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C - Since we have already quashed the re-assessment proceedings in the preceding paragraphs, therefore, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the PCIT becomes infructuous and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, hold that the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 has become infructuous. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1176
Seeking to quash impugned order - applicability of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act for certain financial years - HELD THAT:- The impugned Order-in-Original comprises of and encompasses the periods2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and April 2023 - July 2023. In this context, it is relevant to state that the Amnesty Scheme passed under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act is for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific submission made on behalf of the petitioner that they would intend to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent and remit the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh, by issuing certain directions, in accordance with law.
The matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1175
Validity of simultaneous or parallel proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 under Section 73 of the KGST Act for the same financial year - HELD THAT:- The respondent No. 6 – Assistant Commissioner and respondent No. 5 – Deputy Commissioner have ventured to initiate simultaneous / dual / parallel proceedings in relation to the same year 2019-20 by putting forth the very same contentions against the petitioner, which is clearly impermissible in law and consequently, the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 deserve to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of respondent No. 5 – Deputy Commissioner to proceed further in accordance with law.
Matter is remitted back to respondent No. 5 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law to the stage of replying to Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2024 issued by respondent No. 5 to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1174
Seeking to quash the adjudication order along with the summary of order passed under Section 73 of the KGST Act - reasonable opportunity provided to petitioner to file reply to the SCN or not - removal of attachment of the input tax credit ledger of petitioner - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner-company did not submit any reply either to the intimation dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure-D) or to the show cause notice dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent No. 3. So also, the petitioner-company did not participate in the impugned proceedings, which culminated in the impugned order, which is undisputedly an ex-parte adjudication order, calling upon the petitioner-company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,20,75,208/- towards tax, interest and penalty.
However, by adopting justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner-company to submit its reply to the show cause notice and contest the proceedings, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the rival contentions, it is deemed just and appropriate to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent No. 3 to the stage of petitioner-company submitting its reply to the show cause notice and to proceed further in accordance with law.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1173
Entitlement for benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the petitioner for the waiver of late fees for filing GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 returns - HELD THAT:- Concededly, petitioner had filed its returns before the date prescribed in notification number 7/2023 and 25/2023. Those taxpayers who had filed within the period prescribed in aforesaid notifications were given the benefit of waiver of late fee beyond Rs. 10,000/-. Petitioner who had filed his its returns even before the notification came in, not being given the benefit of waiver of late fee as mentioned above. Such a differential treatment between persons who filed their returns, belatedly but before the notification came in, and those who filed within the period prescribed by the notification, is according to me, improper.
In the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in M/s. RT Pharma v. Union of India & Others [2024 (12) TMI 1228 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT], in a similar set of facts, it was observed that it will be unjust to deny the benefit of the Amnesty Notification to those who have filed the returns prior to the date prescribed under the said Notification. It is further observed that the intention of the Government in issuing the notification was to encourage the filing of the returns.
A learned single Judge of this court had, in Anishia Chandrakanth v. The Superintendent [2024 (4) TMI 993 - KERALA HIGH COURT], observed that when the government itself had waived late fee under the aforesaid two notifications in excess of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of non-filers, there appears to be no justification in continuing with the notices for non-payment of late fee for belated GSTR-9C, that too filed by the taxpayers before 01-04-2023, the date on which the amnesty commenced.
Since the intention behind the two notifications is to encourage the taxpayers to file their returns, a person cannot be put to prejudice merely because he filed the returns prior to the date fixed in the Notification. It is in fact, the spirit of the Notifications that has to be taken into consideration. Viewed in that light, petitioner having filed its returns before the date prescribed in the Notification should also be given the benefit of the waiver of late fee beyond Rs. 10,000/-.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1172
Exemption u/s 11 and 12 denied - transactions of purchasing shares and investment by way of Share Application Money - AO concluded that the Assessee had violated Section 13 (1) (d) by making an investment in equity shares - income of the Assessee was assessed which was held as taxable at Maximum Marginal Rate in accordance with provisions of Section 164(2) - ITAT allowed assessee claim.
HELD THAT:- The present appeal was heard along with Indian Broadcasting Foundation [2025 (3) TMI 1124 - DELHI HIGH COURT] filed by the Revenue against the same Assessee in respect of AY 2014-15, assailing a similar order passed by the learned ITAT. These appeals were admitted on the same questions of law by this Court.
By way of judgment [2025 (3) TMI 1124 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we have answered the question of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue, and held that the application of funds by the Assessee in BARC does not qualify as ‘investment’ under Section 11 (5) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, inasmuch as the said deployment was not intended to yield income, profit, or return, but was made pursuant to a statutory and regulatory obligation to further the Assessee’s charitable objectives.
We are of the opinion that the order of the learned ITAT does not suffer from any infirmity or error and, is, therefore upheld. Decided against revenue.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1171
Revision u/s 264 - shortage of stock found during a survey by the Central Excise Authority - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed proper income tax return for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and shown the total loss - AO while passing the order u/s 143 (3) on the basis of survey conducted by the Excise Authority found that the valuation of the stock has not been mentioned in the books of account of the petitioner.
So the AO has added the said income and the petitioner has also admitted the same before the Excise Authority.
So the petitioner Company has not mentioned the difference of stock in their books of accounts. In spite of issuance of notice by the Department of the Assessment proceedings the petitioner failed to offer any satisfactory explanation. The petitioner has also not preferred any appeal against the assessment order and only preferred revision petition u/s 264.
While dismissing the revision, the Revisional Authority has noted that the petitioner/Company has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding the discrepancy at the time of assessment proceedings or at the time of penalty proceedings. It was found that discrepancy of stock found at the time of Central Excise survey was accepted by the petitioner Company as the sales outside books of accounts and the petitioner has also paid excise duty on that amount.
Entire sale done outside books of accounts is income to be added, as the raw material cost has been accounted for in the regular books of accounts. Thus the petitioner's contention that only GP should be added to income could not be accepted. It is settled that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and, therefore, filing of revision petition under Section 264 against quantum addition would not be of any help to the petitioner in the Appellate proceedings against the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c).
Considering the scope of writ jurisdiction and the fact that the petitioner has failed to establish any violation of natural justice or competency of jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid findings recorded by the Revisional Authority. WP dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1170
Writ of Mandamus sought to the ITAT that it should admit the additional evidence tendered by the Petitioner and consider the same - HELD THAT:- The record shows that by order ITAT permitted documents from Serial Nos.1 to 7 to be produced, thereby, by implication reject the production of the other documents. This order is no where challenged in this petition.
Still, it is almost urged that we should ignore the order dated 29th January, 2025 and still issue a Mandamus to ITAT to admit and consider the remaining documents. This according to us, is not permissible in absence of any challenge to the order dated 29th January, 2025.
In any event, if the Petitioner is ultimately aggrieved by the orders that ITAT will make in the appeal, including, the non-consideration of any relevant or any crucial documents, the Petitioner, has alternate and efficacious remedy against such order, if and when made. However, based upon the allegations in the petition or the kind of reliefs applied for, we are afraid we would not be justified in entertaining this petition and stopping the further proceedings before the ITAT. WP dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1169
Validity of order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals u/s 263 - closed remand or open remand - correctness of findings that the assessee ought to have questioned the order u/s 263 in a separate proceedings - HELD THAT:- We find from the records that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the IT Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand. While exercising the suo moto power of revision under Section 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner had found that the order of assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, set aside the order of assessment and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for a fresh consideration on merits. That be so, it is beyond one’s comprehension as to how the tribunal could hold that the order of remand under Section 263 of the IT Act passed by the Commissioner of Appeals is a closed remand. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee need not have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding.
In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceedings.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as ‘not maintainable’. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the tribunal requires to be interfered with - appeal will stand restored to the files for fresh consideration. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1168
Rejecting petitioner’s application filed u/s 119 (2) (b) refusing to condone the delay in filing Income Tax Returns - HELD THAT:-Under Section 119 the delay could be condoned if the assessee makes out that the condonation of delay sought is in respect of genuine claim and if condonation of delay is refused, the assessee would suffer genuine hardship.
In the instant case, the reasons stated by the petitioner-Private Limited Company is that they had moved to their native place due to pandemic and they were also suffering from medical problems. During pandemic, every person has suffered and when the hardship during pandemic period is pleaded, the Authorities shall be liberal in considering such grounds.
As deem it appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-A, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner u/s 119 (2) (b) of 1961 Act, remanding the matter to the second respondent to consider afresh, with liberty to the petitioner to place on record the documents if any, in support of its contention.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1167
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO did not take mandatory permission of PCIT/CIT at the time of issuance of notice under Section 148 - HELD THAT:- We observe that the case of assessee falls u/s 151(2) which provides that in case a regular assessment under Section 143(3) has not taken place, then notice can be issued with the authority of JCIT, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. In the instant case, admittedly the return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and no regular assessment of the assessee was carried out under Section 143(3) of the Act, prior to the present proceedings.
Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the legal challenge to the issuance of 148 notice raised by the Counsel for the assessee is hereby rejected.
Restricted the disallowance to 15% of the cartage expenses - On going through the order passed by CIT(A) for A.Y. 2011-12, and considering the arguments placed by the assessee to the effect that since identical facts are involved for the impugned assessment year as well, in the interest of justice, the disallowance with respect to cartage expenses paid are hereby directed to be restricted to 15%.
Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1166
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - PCIT observed that the deduction claimed u/s 54 was allowed by AO as the assessee has sold the land and has not invested the entire amount of sale consideration in the acquisition of the house property, only proportionate deduction should be allowed - PCIT further observed that assessee has declared the sale consideration on the basis of the agreement of sale/registered sale deed whereas the sale price as per provisions of section 50C being higher. Thus, the provisions of section 50C are to be invoked. This fact has not been examined by the AO
Allowability of deduction claimed u/s 54 or 54F and determination of amount of deduction - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO himself while passing the order in compliance to the directions given in the order u/s 263 has allowed the deduction u/s 54 of the Act at Rs. 5,00,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee, and, therefore, their remained no question to hold to assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on this point. It is also seen from the effect order dated 21.03.2024 that the deduction claimed/s 54 of the Act at Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was offered for the tax after expiry of three years in AY 2021-22 when the assessee has failed to make investment as per law, therefore, if any further addition/disallowance is made in the year under appeal it would be double taxation. Thus, this issue does not service for consideration at this stage.
Application of section 50C and re-computation of sale consideration - CBDT has issued instruction No.20/2015 wherein it is clearly stated that it is not open for AO to travel beyond the reason of limited scrutiny except in the event where the AO during his examination found certain facts which requires further investigation. In that case, the AO should take necessary approval from the higher authorities to convert the assessment from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny and then can examine such other issues. Since, in the instant case, no such procedure was followed nor such satisfaction was recorded, therefore, it is not a case where the AO could examine the application of provision of section 50C which otherwise is beyond his jurisdiction. This view is supported by the decision of P&H High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rakesh Kumar
AO has no jurisdiction to examine the issue which is beyond his jurisdiction, therefore, there is no error in the assessment order of the AO for which the same could be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, the order passed u/s 263 is set aside. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1165
Legality of order passed u/s. 144 - addition towards unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute by the department regarding the purchase and sales as appearing in the books of account which had also been accepted by the department, therefore, there is no possibility for the CIT(A) to hold that these deposits were outside the normal course of business of the assessee.
The addition has been made by the AO because he was not convinced with the source of the cash deposits in the bank which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
On a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), it is noticed that the CIT(Appeals) has not passed a speaking order in terms of Sections 250(4) and (6) of the Act. In that regard, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) becomes a cryptic, arbitrary and bad in law. The basic fact is that when the genuineness of the assessee’s business is not disputed or any undisclosed sources has not been unearthed by the department and nothing is there on record which shows that the assessee had earned income from other sources other than from its business.
Separate addition on a perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the AO had rejected the return of income filed by the assessee as the same was filed belatedly - AO while making computation has determined income which suggests that the assessment order is self-contradictory. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals), it is noticed that the CIT(Appeals) has not passed speaking order in terms of Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act and summarily sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In that regard, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) becomes a cryptic, arbitrary and bad in law
When the business of the assessee had not been disputed by the department and books of account has been accepted, then there is no justification for the lower authorities in making/sustaining the addition - direct the AO to delete the addition from the hands of the assessee.
Assessee appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
