|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1484 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 1124
Exemption u/s 11 - transactions of purchasing shares and investment by the way of Share Application Money in BARC,a 100% subsidiary of the Assessee - HELD THAT:- BARC, being a company registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act, is legally prohibited from distributing any dividends or profits to its shareholders. Additionally, in the event of liquidation, Memorandum of Association of BARC mandates that any surplus must be transferred to another company registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act with similar objectives, thereby negating any possibility of personal gain or profit for the Assessee from its deployment of funds.
Therefore this Court finds merit in the Assessee’s submission that the deployment of funds by the Assessee in BARC, by way of purchase of its shares, was – prima facie – not for earning any income or profit, but solely to meet the Assessee’s objectives, as mandated by Government policy, following the TRAI Recommendations.
Whether the deployment of funds by the Assessee in the shares of BARC constitutes an ‘investment’ within the meaning of Section 11 (5) read with Section 13 (1) (d)? - Scope and meaning of the term 'investment' - Essential feature of an investment is – the intention to earn a return, profit, or income from the money laid out. The term ‘investment’ in both common parlance and legal sense implies an expenditure with the objective of generating a financial return or profit.
We note that in Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust [2001 (2) TMI 78 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had discussed the scope of the term ‘investment’ and highlighted that the ‘intention to earn income’ is central to the concept of investment.
As in Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation [2013 (12) TMI 1157 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had addressed the issue as to whether a transaction involving the purchase of shares in cooperative banks by a charitable trust constituted an ‘investment’ u/s 11 (5) held that the investment in shares of cooperative banks was a precondition of raising of loans and it was therefore not an investment as normally understood.
From the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the essence of ‘investment’ lies in the intention and the capacity of the expenditure to yield income, profit, or return. The consistent judicial view is that mere deployment of funds does not amount to an investment unless it is aimed at earning income or return.
It is evident that the Assessee had invested funds in the shares of BARC, a not-for-profit company, which is legally prohibited from distributing any dividends or profits. Even on liquidation, the surplus of BARC would be transferred to another charitable entity and not to its shareholders. Thus, no financial return or gain was possible from the Assessee’s deployment of funds in BARC.
As a sequitur to the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the application of funds by the Assessee in BARC does not qualify as ‘investment’ u/s 11 (5) r.w.s. 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.
Since we have held that there was no violation of Section 11 (5) read with Section 13 (1) (d) committed by the Assessee herein; consequently, the decision of the CIT (A), upheld by the learned ITAT, to allow the exemption to the Assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act, is also affirmed. Decided against revenue.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1123
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - difference of rent in the profit and loss account and AIR - HELD THAT:- We are surprised as to how the audit memo came to the attention of the petitioner since the audit memo is internal correspondence between the audit department of the revenue and the AO. An explanation in response to the audit memo cannot be treated as disclosure during the assessment proceedings, but it is post the assessment proceedings.
Therefore, the response to the audit memo cannot be considered for adjudicating whether there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. In the clarification to the audit memo, there is no explanation of the difference between rental figures. However, it appears that the petitioner's contention in the course of giving audit clarification seems to be that the TDS was deducted in some cases @10% and not @2%. This is a very vague reply, and indeed, this reply was not presented during the assessment proceedings.
We upheld the reopening of the assessment regarding the difference in rental figures.
Non-deduction of TDS on staff salary - In the letters filed by the petitioner during the assessment proceedings, there are no details concerning the deduction of TDS on salary. The letter dated 17 August 2015 states that the ledger copy of the salary expenses is attached. However, such ledger copy has not been annexed in the writ petition, but the same appears to have been annexed with the rejoinder. On a perusal of the salary ledger account, it is unclear whether the TDS has been deducted. There is no mention in the objections on this issue and, therefore, the only inference which could be drawn is that there has been no disclosure during the regular assessment proceedings on this issue. Hence, the reopening is upheld even on this account.
Claim of depreciation - Reasons recorded show that the petitioner has claimed depreciation on printers @60% in the audit report and the balance sheet, whereas according to the revenue, the depreciation should be only @15% / 7.5%. Insofar as this issue is concerned, since the petitioner has claimed depreciation by disclosing the same @60%, at least prima facie, there cannot be any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and, therefore, on this issue, we do not uphold the initiation of the reassessment proceedings. However, since we have upheld the reassessment proceedings on the above two grounds, this issue can be examined during the reassessment proceedings.
Difference in the total receipts as appearing in the profit and loss account and, as per AIR details - In the letter dated 17 August 2015, in Item 7, there is a reference to reconciliation of TDS with 26AS statement. The said statement was not annexed to the petition but the same is annexed in the rejoinder of the petitioner at page 232. On a perusal of the said statement, it appears that the petitioner has filed a reconciliation of the figures as per the profit and loss account, the 26AS statement and the statistics that appear in the reasons recorded can be found in the said statement. Therefore, insofar as this issue is concerned, in our view, the petitioner has prima facie disclosed and explained the difference in the course of the assessment proceedings, and, therefore, reassessment of this account might be vulnerable. However, since we have upheld the reassessment proceedings on the other two items, the petitioner will be free to explain the reconciliation during the reassessment proceedings.
Therefore, the overall challenge of reopening the assessment fails. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1122
Disallowance u/s 40A (3) - amount paid by the respondent (Assessee) for purchase of the first and second floors of the property - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the balance sheet reflects the assets in question (first and second floors of the subject property) as an investment. Revenue is unable to draw the attention of this court to any material which would suggest that the amount spent by the Assessee was debited to its P&L Account or that the final accounts of the company for the relevant financial years reflect the first and second floors of the subject property as stock-in-trade and not as an investment.
We find no grounds to fault the decision of the ITAT in upholding the CIT(A)’s decision that no disallowance u/s 40A (3) is admissible as the Assessee had not claimed the amount spent on purchasing the first and second floors of the subject property as expenditure. Since the amount is not claimed as an expenditure, the question of disallowance of the same does not arise. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1121
Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) - donor and donee were not relatives[Step brother sister] and therefore, the receipt of the property gifted without consideration was chargeable to tax - whether the gift given by step sister to a step brother falls within the definition of “relative” as given by Section 56 (2) ? - HELD THAT:- As per the Dictionary meaning of the term “relative”, it includes a person related by affinity, which means the connection existing in consequence of marriage between each of the married persons and the kindred of the other. If the aforesaid Dictionary meaning is to be referred and relied upon, then the term “relative” would include step brother and step sister by affinity. If the term “brother and sister of the individual” has not been defined under the Income Tax Act, then, the meaning defined in common law has to be adopted and in absence of any other negative covenant under the Act, in our view, brother and sister should also include step brother and step sister who by virtue of marriage of their parents have become brother and sister.
Accordingly, we hold that gift given by step sister to a step brother falls within the definition of “relative”, that is, they are to treated as brother and sister as per Section 56(2)(vii) and consequently, property received by brother from sister cannot be taxed u/s. 56(2). Accordingly, the claim of the assessee is exempt from being taxed as income from other sources is accepted and accordingly, the addition made by the ld. AO is deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1120
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons have not been supplied - addition on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A and unexplained jewellery - HELD THAT:- We find that at no point of time, the reasons recorded by the AO were ever supplied to the assessee despite specific request as per the letter dated 24/12/2015 incorporated supra.
As noted above assessee has challenged this issue specifically before the CIT (A) and detailed submissions were made, however, nowhere, CIT (A) has even addressed this point. At least at the appellate stage, CIT (A) could have asked the AO to provide the reasons recorded and he himself could have taken note of the objections.
Even before us, no material has been brought on record that these reasons which have been given before us, was ever made available to the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that no reasons were supplied to the assessee despite specific request. Once that is so, then it is a clear violation of the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT].
Thus, if the reasons have not been supplied, then the entire re-assessment notice u/s. 148 and consequently, the entire re-assessment order u/s. 148 is bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1119
Addition u/s 56(2)(x) - difference between the actual purchase price of a property and its valuation by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) - HELD THAT:- There is no reason to believe that the DVO has not valued the property correctly. After considering the submissions of both the parties, when the registration value of the property is Rs. 60,15,959/-, the burden lies on the assessee to establish that the value of the property mentioned in the Sale Deed is true and correct.
In this case, the assessee has not given even any valid evidence to believe that the value of the property is only Rs. 38,44,884/-. However, the matter was referred to the DVO and DVO has valued at Rs. 42,51,700/-. Admittedly the registration value is Rs. 60,15,759/-. Therefore, no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by AO as well as the ld. CIT(Appeals) and also, no infirmity in the valuation made by the DVO. Therefore, there is no valid reason in the arguments of assessee saying that DVO has not properly valued the property. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are liable to be dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1118
Deduction u/s. 80IC - cumulative satisfaction by the assessee company of the pre-conditions for claiming the modified deduction - HELD THAT:- There is neither any whisper in the order of the CIT(A) as to whether or not the assessee-company had in substance carried out “substantial expansion” as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of section 80IC nor he had verified to his satisfaction that the other pre-conditions for supporting the aforesaid modified claim of deduction raised by the assessee company were duly complied with.
AR’s claim that the AO had allowed the enhanced claim for deduction u/s 80IC to the assessee company in the immediately preceding year, the same in our considered view, would though support the latter’s claim for modified deduction for the subject year, but cannot be stretched to the extent of justifying dispensing with verification as regards the cumulative satisfaction of the pre-conditions for claiming the modified/enhanced deduction during the year under consideration.
Accordingly, we, though principally concur with the CIT(A), that as per the judgment of Aarham Softronics.[2019 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT] assessee-company on carrying out “substantial expansion” as defined in clause (ix) of subsection (8) of section 80IC would pass the eligibility criterion to claim 100 percent deduction of its profits and gains reckoned from the previous year in which such “substantial expansion” was undertaken by treating the same as the “initial assessment year”, but are unable to approve his summarily allowing of the modified claim for deduction by dispensing with the verification of the cumulative satisfaction of the pre-conditions contemplated in the said statutory provision.
We thus, are of a firm conviction, that the matter in all fairness requires to be restored to the file of the CIT(A), who is directed to read-judicate the same after verifying the cumulative satisfaction by the assessee company of the pre-conditions for claiming the modified deduction so raised by it under Sec. 80IC(2)(a)(ii). Appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1117
Rectification application u/s.154 - assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12AA, assessee filed its return of income showing gross receipt which were utilized towards the objects of the trust, assessee inadvertently claimed exemption u/s.10(23C) instead of Section 11 - HELD THAT:- No action has been taken by the AO as against the first rectification application filed by the assessee. When the second rectification application filed on 14.12.2022 the same also rejected on the ground of barred by limitation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass order on the rectification application dated 26.05.2016 filed by the assessee by giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1116
Additions u/s 69A - unexplained income - HELD THAT:- We observe that the assessee had submitted cash book for various years under consideration, on the basis of cash withdrawn / deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts held with various banks.
AO has not pointed out any source of income of the assessee, apart from salary income and there is no allegation that the assessee had earned any unexplained income outside the books of accounts. Further, there is no allegation by the Department that the cash so withdrawn by the assessee from his bank accounts, was not available with the assessee for being re-deposited in his bank account.
It is a well settled principle that if the AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee has been used elsewhere and that the same were not available with the assessee for re-depositing, then it has to be presumed that the subsequent re-deposit in the bank accounts were sourced out of earlier withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank account.
Accordingly, since opening cash balance was sourced out of withdrawals made from the assessee’s bank accounts and since there was no specific allegation that the amount was not available with the assessee for re-depositing, the opening cash balance cannot be added as income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
Addition u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- Since there is no specific allegation that the assessee had utilized the cash withdrawals elsewhere, in our view, there is no reason for the Assessing Officer to make addition u/s 69A of the Act.
On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that no specific observations were made by the AO while making the addition that the assessee had utilized the cash withdrawals elsewhere and further, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out as to why the cash withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account was not available with the assessee for re-deposit.
Accordingly, keeping in view the assessee’s facts, the addition is directed to be deleted.
Addition received by the assessee from sale of cars - HELD THAT:- Sale of Renault Fluence Car and Santro Cars are concerned, complete details with regards to the purchaser were furnished by the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings and the only reason why the addition was made in the hands of the assessee was only on the ground that the purchaser failed to respond to notices issued by the Income Tax Department. No other adverse inference / observations was made by the AO/ CIT(A) while confirming the addition in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, looking into the assessee’s set of facts, in our considered view addition on sale of Fluence car and Santro car are liable to be deleted.
Sale of Mercedes Benz car - Assessee has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings made by the Assessing Officer / CIT(A) while confirming the addition. The only submission given by the assessee is that the car was sold through an agent. However, apart from this statement, no this has been brought on record to controvert the findings of the AO and the assessee in our view, has not been able to establish the genuineness of the sale of Mercedes Car. Therefore, on going through the records of the assessee’s case, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Accordingly, addition on sale of Mercedes Benz car is liable to be sustained in the hands of the assessee.
Addition received from Late Prabhatsinhji Thakor as contribution for joint venture u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Joint Development deal with Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore did not materialize and the land development in terms of the MOU never took place. Further, we were also informed that the money so statedly received by the assessee from Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore was also never returned back by the assessee. Although, the confirmation of Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore was placed on record, however, in our considered view, this itself does not prove the genuineness of the transaction and nor does it prove the creditworthiness of the party. Shri Prabhatsingh Thakore had not filed return of income for the impugned year under consideration and nothing has been brought on record to show the creditworthiness of Shri Prabhatsingh Attaji Thakore to advance such substantial amount to the assessee.
Bogus sale of shares u/s 69A - assessee submitted that all evidences regarding transaction of shares viz. Shares transfer Form, audited accounts of the purchaser company etc. were furnished, and that there is no doubt that such sale of shares were made by the assessee, in lieu of cash - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to furnish the creditworthiness of M/s. Fincruise Services Pvt. Ltd. and there is nothing on record to show that M/s. Fincruise Services Pvt. Ltd. paid an amount of Rs. 49,99,990/- to the assessee in cash. Assessee despite being given several opportunities, did not produce cash book of the purchaser company to show separate cash payment. Further, in absence of cash book of M/s. Fincruise Services Pvt. Ltd. it is also not possible to ascertain whether the purchaser company had availability of cash at the relevant time to make such share purchase in cash, as stated by the assessee. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact of assessee’s case, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) so as to call for any interference.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1115
Nature of expenditure - professional fees paid for drafting application for patents - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Considering that the genuineness of the expenditure is not in dispute, are of the view that since the expenditure in question before us has been incurred in the regular course of business and no specific intangible asset has been created, therefore, the assessee deserves the deduction of the alleged expenses u/s 37(1) and it has been rightly claimed as ‘revenue expenditure’. Thus, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Translation expenses for software development - This claim of the assessee has been denied by AO treating it to be a capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- We observe that the assessee in the business of providing solutions for enterprise application language localization across all industry verticals for which the assessee requires experts who can translate various words into the customers specified language. The translation expenses is specific to each sale as the dictionary prepared for one customer once is hardly of any use in any other sale.
We also observe that no new asset came into existence and the expenditure is customer specific and has no enduring benefit. Further, the intention of the expenditure is to facilitate sales and not develop software. Therefore, since the alleged expenditure towards translation expenses for software development has been incurred in the regular course of business for the year under consideration, the same is hereby treated as ‘revenue expenditure’ and the claim made by the assessee deserves to be allowed.
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee has claimed that AO has not made proper satisfaction - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the assessee had earned dividend income from mutual funds investments only at Rs. 1210/- therefore as decided in Joint Investment (P.) Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed exempt income earned by it, we affirm the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 1210/- and delete the remaining amount of disallowance at Rs. 1, 02, 574/-. Thus, ground no.4 raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1114
Rejection of application for registration and cancelling the provisional registration granted to the assessee u/s 80G(5) -
HELD THAT:- CIT(E) was not justified in dismissing the application for registration and cancelling the provisional registration granted to the assessee u/s 80G(5) of the Act.
Revenue has not brought on record any contrary material/judicial precedent before us. We therefore deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider and decide afresh the assessee’s application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act on merits. Appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1113
Penalty u/s 270A - underreporting of income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while deciding the appeal had dealt with ground nos.7 to 11 regarding section 270AA of the Act and failed to deal with ground nos.1 to 6 regarding levying penalty under section 270A of the Act
It is well settled principle of law, in interest of justice, it is considered expedient to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law. Appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1112
Seeking to quash the impugned order - Seeking provisional release of goods - allegation of undervaluation was raised against the Petitioner - a bank guarantee has been furnished by the Petitioner for the last more than 14 years which is now lying with the Respondent/Department - HELD THAT:- The present dispute would, in the opinion of this Court, be clearly covered by the circular dated 2nd November, 2013, as the amount involved is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Upon hearing both the parties in detail, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the said instructions, the appeal of the Department before CESTAT deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the appeal filed by the Department before CESTAT stands dismissed, in view of the monetary limits. The bank guarantee shall be released within a period of 8 weeks.
The Court acknowledges that the appeal was filed before the Instruction dated 2nd November, 2023 came into effect and finds no lapse on the part of the Department. However, the present order has been passed considering the fact that disregarding the Instruction dated 2nd November, 2023 would serve no useful purpose, as it would necessitate the restoration of the appeal for a fresh hearing. It would also mean that the Bank Guarantee would continue to be kept alive incurring further costs.
Conclusion - Considering the monetary limit of the Instruction would apply even to pending matters, the CESTAT would also inevitably follow the same course of action. Thus, instead of remanding the matter, considering that the monetary value in the Appeal before CESTAT is Rs. 29,66,805/- plus Rs. 20 lakhs, which is below the limit fixed for CESTAT appeals, the appeal before CESTAT deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1111
Imposition of Anti-dumping Duty - rejection of the Petitioners' response due to a delay in submission - HELD THAT:- Under Rule 8, the Designated Authority is to satisfy itself about the accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties. The manner in which the information is to be provided is also set out in the initiation notice and the questionnaire which is put up by the designated authority in the present case. Under Rule 8, the accuracy can be ascertained on the basis of the information provided by the interested parties. Paragraph number 89 of the disclosure statement in fact records various observations about the information gleaned from the response filed by the Petitioners. The said paragraph also specifically records that the reported transactions which are relied upon by the Petitioners do not allow the identification of the product which is to be exported which would be a very crucial aspect in the investigation itself.
The system of imposition of anti-dumping duty does not end with the disclosure statement being published. In fact, after the disclosure statement is published, the authority has to determine the nature of the injury which the domestic industry is suffering and thereafter arrive at its preliminary findings or final findings in terms of the Rules. After arriving at such findings, the anti-dumping duties are determined.
The Petitioners are always at liberty to respond to the Designated Authority in respect of any grievances that they may have in the consideration of the data which has been given. In terms of the operating manual it cannot be stated that physical inspection is mandatory in every case. Moreover, it depends upon the product concerned, the nature of the injury which the domestic industry is suffering and the data which is furnished by the exporters/suppliers. In each and every case, if physical inspection is mandated, it would result in delay of the investigation.
Upon seeing the facts of this case, it cannot be said that adequate consideration has not been given at this stage. The Petitioners are free to file their responses and give any clarifications which they may deem appropriate to the disclosure statement which shall also be duly considered in terms of the Rules.
Conclusion - The Court allowed the Petitioners additional time to submit their response in the correct format, extending the deadline to 21st March, 2025, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1110
Seeking direction to the Respondent to unconditionally release the seized gold bangles of the Petitioner forthwith - recovery of two yellow bangles weighing 50 grams - HELD THAT:- Once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice and afford a hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of The Customs Act, 1962, is a period of six months and subject to complying with the formalities, a further extension for a period of six months can be taken by the Department for issuing the show cause notice. In this case, the one year period itself has elapsed, thus no show cause notice can be issued. The detention is therefore impermissible.
Let the goods be appraised by the Respondent department on their own and the same be released, subject to verification, within four weeks to the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has now attained majority, the appraisement shall be done either in the presence of the Petitioner or an Authorized Representative.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1109
Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue SCN - proper officer or not - HELD THAT:- A common issue raised in all these writ petitions, including the present one, pertains to the jurisdiction of the DRI officials to issue show cause notices or pass adjudication orders. However there are various other issues that have been raised in some matters, which are not common across all petitions. Accordingly, in each of these matters, the Court will have to determine whether they are liable to be disposed of in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Canon - II [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] or if any outstanding issues remain to be adjudicated.
In this writ petition, the show cause notice dated 29th December, 2020 was challenged, however, during the pendency of the writ petition the Order-in-Original dated 28th September, 2022 has also been passed. The said order is stated to have been challenged by the Department as also by the Petitioner before CESTAT in two appeals being Customs Appeal Nos. C/87924/2022-CUS and C/87921/2022-CUS. In view of the fact that both parties have availed of their remedies before CESTAT, no further orders are called for in this writ petition.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1108
Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue SCN - proper officer or not - HELD THAT:- A common issue raised in all these writ petitions, including the present one, pertains to the jurisdiction of the DRI officials to issue show cause notices or pass adjudication orders. However there are various other issues that have been raised in some matters, which are not common across all petitions. Accordingly, in each of these matters, the Court will have to determine whether they are liable to be disposed of in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Canon - II [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] or if any outstanding issues remain to be adjudicated.
The show cause notice/s dated 31st December, 2020 issued by the DRI, Lucknow Zonal Unit were under challenge. During the pendency of the petitions, the adjudicating authority has passed the Order-in-Original dated 20th December, 2022 in favour of the Petitioners. The same was brought on record vide separate applications bearing nos. CM APPL. 12354/2023 in W.P.(C) 6850/2021 and CM APPL. 12275/2023 in W.P.(C) 6851/2021. In view of the fact that the Order-in-Original is passed, in favour of the Petitioners, the challenge in these matters no longer survives.
In the present petition, the show cause notice which is under challenge is SCN dated 31st December, 2020 issued by the DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit. This would be covered by directions given in paragraph 168 (vi) (a) of the Canon-II [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], wherein the adjudication of the show cause notice is to be restored to the adjudicating authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1107
Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue SCN - proper officer or not - HELD THAT:- In this matter, there were two grounds for challenge. One is that the DRI did not have jurisdiction which is now settled by the Canon - II [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] and the next ground is to the fact that while passing the Order-in-Original dated 26th February, 2021, no hearing was afforded to the Petitioner.
List for hearing on 8th April, 2025 at 2:30 p.m.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1106
Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue SCN - proper officer or not - HELD THAT:- A common issue raised in all these writ petitions, including the present one, pertains to the jurisdiction of the DRI officials to issue show cause notices or pass adjudication orders. However there are various other issues that have been raised in some matters, which are not common across all petitions. Accordingly, in each of these matters, the Court will have to determine whether they are liable to be disposed of in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Canon - II [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] or if any outstanding issues remain to be adjudicated.
In the present petition, the show cause notice dated 17th November 2017 issued by the DRI, Lucknow Zonal Unit is challenged. This SCN would be covered by directions given in paragraph 168 (vi) (a) of the Canon-II - Accordingly, the proceedings in the show cause notice under challenge dated 17th November 2017 shall now proceed before the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.
Since the writ petition was pending for a long period, the Petitioner is afforded 60 days to file a reply to the show cause notice. The opportunity of a personal hearing shall be granted to the Petitioner and the show cause notice shall then be adjudicated.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1105
Condonation of delay of 233 days in refiling the appeal by the appellant - delay caised due to old age and health issues - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The Appeal being filed on 22.02.2024 through e-filing, which was within the 30 days from the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, was filed within limitation period and there is no delay in filing of the Appeal. However, it is to be noted that the defects have to be cured within a period of 7 days as per Rule 26 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. But in this case, it has not been done repeatedly and the cumulative delay in refiling is 233 days. Furthermore, same defects were being notified again and again and the Appellant has allowed the Appeal to remain defective for a very long time with the Registry.
The Appellant has been callous in not correcting the defects pointed out by the NCLAT registry in a timely manner. The grounds taken by the Appellant giving health reasons of the Appellant do not correlate with the reality in the present case.
The grounds taken by the Appellant giving health reasons of the Appellant do not correlate with the reality in the present case. It is not clear as to why the Appellant was not pursuing his case for curing of the defects in a timely manner. In case if the defects were not curable, the Appellant could have mentioned it before this Tribunal to take up the Appeal with defects, which was not done in this case. The explanation provided in the Additional Affidavit also doesn’t inspire much confidence. The reasons as provided are not sufficient to condone the delay in refiling.
Conclusion - As there is no sufficient cause explained by the Appellant, therefore, the condonation of delay application is dismissed.
The condonation of delay application is dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
