|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 17958 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 1509
Refund of excess tax - Learned advocate Mr.Uchit Sheth seeks liberty for revival in case of any difficulty - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed of with this assurance on the part of respondent-State, with a liberty to revive, in case of any difficulty.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1508
Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) - rejection of valuation report of the valuer - premium received on issue of equity share exceeds its ‘Fair Market Value’ (FMV) and consequently the excess premium received on issue of equity share is susceptible to tax in view of provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) as deemed income of the assessee - Substitution of value of shares - valuation as per DCF method - AO proceeded to determine value based on actual figures of profits for next two years, i.e., F.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 in substitution of the projected profits before tax adopted in the valuation report
HELD THAT:- The assessee in the instant case has proceeded to issue equity share at a premium on the basis of independent valuer report wherein DCF method was adopted for the purposes of determination of fair market value. The Assessing Officer has not disputed the DCF method adopted for valuation per se. AO however, has compared the projected figures used by the valuer with the actual figures available at the time of assessment.
AO displaced the FMV determined as per DCF method based on projected figures by replacing the same by actual figures to discard the justification of share premium. We find that such action of the AO substitute the figures estimated at the time of valuation towards ensuing years by actual figures made available to AO at the later point of time is squarely in contrast to the judgment of Cinestaan Entertainment [2021 (3) TMI 239 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and decision of Intelligrape Software Pvt. Ltd [2020 (10) TMI 403 - ITAT DELHI]
In Cinestaan [2021 (3) TMI 239 - DELHI HIGH COURT] took cognizance of the identical situation, i.e., the AO had disregarded the valuation report of the assessee primarily on the ground that the projections of revenue considered for the purpose of valuation do not match with the actual revenue arose in the subsequent years - in the fact situation observed that the assessee company has adopted a recognized method of valuation and the revenue could not show that assessee has adopted demonstrably wrong approach. It was observed that valuation is not an exact science and therefore cannot be done with arithmetic precision.
It is a technical and complex issue which should best be appropriately left to the consideration and wisdom of experts in the field, having regard to the imponderables which enter the process of valuation of shares. The Hon’ble High Court thus upheld the action of the ITAT and consequently the additions made under the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) made by the AO were reversed.
Similar view has been taken in Intelligrape Pvt. Ltd [2020 (10) TMI 403 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it was observed that the valuation based on future projections at the time of issue of shares cannot be inferred as the actual figures may vary depending on the market conditions and host of other factors. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1507
Classification of services - Works Contract Service or not - Construction / Building of Multi-Level Car Parking (MLCP) built by the appellant at New Delhi Airport (Terminal-III) - it was held by CESTAT that the Multi-Level Car Parking (is an amenity primarily for passengers), is adjacent to the main terminal building and the same is the part of aerodrome/ airport.
HELD THAT:- The delay is condoned - appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1506
Validity of reopening of assessment - Bogus LTCG claimed - addition u/s 68 - penny stock transaction - HELD THAT:- From the reasons recorded by AO, it is vivid that there is merit in the arguments advanced by ld DR for the Revenue. We note that assessing officer had received the information from the DDIT (Investigation) unit3(2) Kolkata in respect of the BSE listed Penny stock companies. After getting such information, assessing officer has applied his mind and then framed the reasons for reopening the assessment, therefore it is not a borrowed satisfaction. The assessing officer has also mentioned in the reasons recorded the quantity of shares sold, name of the scrip, and amount received on sale of such shares etc. Thus, we note that reasons recorded by the assessing officer are in accordance with the provisions of law. Therefore, based on these facts and applicable precedents to these facts, we dismiss the additional grounds raised by the assessee.
Addition u/s 68 - We note that findings of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai (2023 (1) TMI 44 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the assessee`s facts under consideration. The genuineness of investment in the shares by the assessee was substantiated by him by producing contract note, Transaction was through recognised Broker, transaction was done through banking channel on which STT was paid. The shares were held by assessee, as an Investor for a period of seven/ eight years. The investment was made in the year 2003 and sold in 2010-11. The shares were retained for more than seven years and were sold after such long time. These circumstances suggest that the investment was not bogus. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted income by frequent trading in short time.
We note that Judgment of Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj and others [2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] should not be applicable to the assessee as it is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Gujarat. However, the Judgment of Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai(supra) should be applicable to the assessee`s case, as it is the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court.
Addition u/s 69C on account of commission paid @ 2% or 3% of bogus long term capital gain - Since, we have deleted the alleged addition of bogus LTCG, hence addition made by AO does not have leg to stand, therefore it is hereby deleted.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1505
Addition u/s 69A in respect of cash deposited in bank accounts during demonetization period - Assessee argued that provisions of this section cannot be invoked in case where concerned money is already recorded in the books of account - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the cash books for the year under consideration, it stands revealed beyond doubt that both the cash deposits each in mentioned bank accounts on 29.11.2016 were made from his books of accounts, thus no justification in dubbing of the cash deposits in question as unexplained money of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act by the lower authorities.
Also we cannot remain oblivion of the fact that as the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR not only militates against the observations of the lower authorities, but also there is nothing discernible from the record which would reveal that the authenticity of the cash book of the assessee for the year under consideration had been looked into by the lower authorities, therefore, it would be unfair to summarily accept the same without subjecting the same to necessary verification - the matter in all fairness requires to be revisited by the A.O. A.O is herein directed to re-adjudicate the issue after duly taking cognizance of the explanation of the assessee as regards the source of the cash deposits in the bank accounts in question. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1504
Seeking revival of appeal - Appellants are BPTP Spacio Park Serene Flat Allottees Welfare Association - HELD THAT:- Liberty granted to the Appellant to revive this Appeal in event the order dated 07.12.2022 does not survive. It is also noticed that in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1382 of 2022, the interim order was passed on 18.11.2022.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1503
Challenge to impugned Assessment cum penalty cum Interest Order - violative of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Having found that the petitioner filed this writ petition against the impugned assessment order without availing the alternative remedy available to him, without expressing the views on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off affording opportunity to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1502
Shifting the goods to a warehouse - Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner is incurring high demurrage charges in the IGI Airport - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the Customs authorities for moving the cargo to a recognized warehouse. The same shall be considered and if the documents are found in order, the same shall be processed and decided within 3 days after moving of the representation.
List on 6th February, 2023.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1501
Monetary limit to file appeal before High Court - Appeal dismissed on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, amending the previous Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, by further enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Income Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court as a measure for reducing litigation. In paragraph 2 of the said circular we find that the monetary limit fixed for filing an appeal before the High Court is Rs. 1.00 crore.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019. However, if the appeal comes within the exception under paragraph 10 of Circular No. 3 of 2018, it would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek revival of the appeal.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1500
Monetary limit to file appeal before High Court - Appeal dismissed on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, amending the previous Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, by further enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Income Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court as a measure for reducing litigation. In paragraph 2 of the said circular we find that the monetary limit fixed for filing an appeal before the High Court is Rs. 1.00 crore.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019. However, if the appeal comes within the exception under paragraph 10 of Circular No. 3 of 2018, it would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek revival of the appeal.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1499
Levy of penalty equivalent to the credit denied - CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods, for setting up the paint shop - inputs not received by the appellant in their factory premises but sent directly to the premises of the job worker, from where the goods were cleared to the customers as per Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules, 2000 - availment of the credit twice - clandestine removal - shortages of finished goods - invoking Rule 3 (5B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in respect of alleged shortages of the inputs and work in process material - extended period of limitation - penalties.
Levy of penalty equivalent to the credit denied - CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods, for setting up the paint shop - HELD THAT:- The appellant do not dispute that these capital goods were not received by them and not installed/ put to use. They do not dispute the denial of the credit, which they had reversed along with the interest due on the same. They are only challenging the penalty imposed on them equivalent to the credit denied. It is found that in respect of the said demand undisputedly appellant have paid the entire amount of credit along with interest on being pointed out by the audit much before the issuance of show cause notice. In such a situation, the as per the provisions of Section 11 A (2) reproduced below, no notice could have been issued to the appellant and penalty imposed - the submission of the appellant, challenging the penalty imposed under needs to be accepted, and appeal in respect of this demand allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed.
CENVAT Credit - demand made on the insulation material without physically receiving the same in their factory premises - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly in the present case the goods were cleared from the premises of the job worker to unrelated buyer after determination of value under Rule 10A. Thus the clearances undertaken were in fact clearances made by the principal manufacturer and all consequences including admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the input raw materials supplied by them to the job worker is on the principal manufacturer. The appellants in fact being the principal manufacturer cannot be faulted when they had availed the credit in respect of the inputs supplied by them directly to the job worker for the clearance of the finished goods as provided for in terms of Rule 10A.
On the issue of admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the inputs sent directly to the premises of job worker, the issue is no longer res-integra. CENVAT Credit has been held to be admissible in respect of the goods sent directly to the job worker - reliance can be placed in M/S BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR [2018 (5) TMI 390 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and FLEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2006 (2) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI].
The principles stated in the above decision were incorporated in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 vide the amendments made by Notification No 6/2015.In view of the decisions, the demand made for recovery of the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the insulation material sent directly to the job worker without receiving the same in their premises cannot be sustained, the appeal needs to be allowed in respect of this demand.
Denial of the CENVAT credits - it is alleged that appellant has availed the CENVAT Credit twice on the same invoice, appellants have not stated anything in their appeal memo - HELD THAT:- From the show cause notice and the impugned order, there are no support for the allegation made. Even the detail of invoice against which the credit has been alleged to have been taken twice is not stated. In absence of any details in respect of the invoice number/ date and the entries in the CENVAT account by which the credit has been taken twice, it cannot be held in favour of this demand. The allegation made without any reference to relevant documents and entries in the book of accounts cannot be upheld. Appeal filed by the appellant in respect of this demand is allowed.
Gross shortages and on the Damaged/ rejected/ Non saleable stock - HELD THAT:- It is observed that these demands have been made in respect to the accounting shortages, which were in respect Raw material, Work in Process material and Finished Goods. These shortages are not the physical shortages determined by the actual physical stock taking undertaken by the department. As per the appellants the entire issue of shortage in the present case, cropped up when the appellants migrated from the earlier system of accounting to SAP system. In process the appellants discovered certain accounting errors in books of account like BOM error, posting entry, material issued to production but not captured in the books, process loss not captured in the books, etc. Accordingly, some of the stocks in the books were reflected at higher side and some of the stocks were reflected at lower side - The department proceeded on the assumption that the shortage in books stock due to accounting errors is an actual shortage of stock without conducting any physical stocktaking to show that the shortages reflected in the books were actually the physical shortages too.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present case the entire demand has been made by the revenue by relying on the book of accounts taking note of the adjustment of stocks of inputs/ work in process/ finished goods as shortages, without producing any evidence of clandestine clearance of the same Further no stock taking has been independently conducted by the revenue to determine any shortages under panchanama - The entire case against the appellants have been made out on the basis of their own book of accounts. There is no evidence adduced to show that the appellants had intention to evade payment of duty by undertaking the review of their account books vis a vis physical inventories at time of shifting their accounts on SAP. Once the book of accounts disclosed the facts completely then proceeding against the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation cannot be justified - It cannot be held that extended period of limitation as provided under Section 11A will not be available for making this demand as the entire case in respect of denial of CENVAT Credit in respect of raw materials contained in the finished goods and raw materials contained in the finished goods and raw materials, the value of which was adjusted in the books of accounts as well as demand of excise duty in respect of finished goods, the value of which was adjusted in the books of accounts, is made out against the appellants on the basis of the own documents of the appellant, which were in the public domain.
Appeal allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1498
Revision u/s 263 - sustainability of the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of “VAT” on sale of liquor - CIT holding a conviction that the “VAT” claimed by the assessee which was liable for disallowance u/s.40(a)(iib) was summarily allowed by the A.O, thus, vide his order passed u/s.263 had set-aside the order passed by the A.O u/s.143(3) - HELD THAT:- We find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. [2022 (1) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT]. As stated by the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, the Hon’ble Apex Court had approved the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala that [2020 (5) TMI 176 - KERALA HIGH COURT] as “surcharge on sales tax” is a “tax”, and Section 40(a)(iib) does not contemplate “tax”, and surcharge on sales tax is not a “fee” or a “charge”, therefore, no disallowance under the said statutory provision was called for in the hands of the assessee.
Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court[surpa], we are of the considered view that the same in fact supports the claim of the assessee that the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) would not be applicable to the case of the assessee qua the “VAT” paid by the assessee company. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations set18 aside the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021, and restore the order of the A.O passed u/s.143(3), to the extent he had allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of “VAT”. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1497
Dishonour if Cheque - compounding of offences - Section 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act coupled with inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice, High Court is not precluded from compounding the case in absence of consent of complainant where complainant is duly compensated as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act does not provide that it is mandatory for the Court to sentence respondent-accused for imprisonment in all eventualities but there is option to the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment or fine or both.
In present case, petitioner is 52% handicapped and has deposited in the Court 10% over and above the amount of compensation and therefore, taking into consideration these facts, it is opined that complainant has been compensated adequately and therefore, substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is not necessary.
Trial Court is directed to release the amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by the petitioner in the Trial Court alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereon, to the respondent-complainant Pushpa Devi by remitting the same in her Bank Account without issuing notice to petitioner-accused-Rajinder Kumar, on production of downloaded copy of this order along with details of Bank account.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1496
Interest u/s 50 of the WBGST Act, 2017 - interest levied on the ground that the petitioner has wrongly claimed ITC under the WBGST Act, 2017 and in the same communication it has been recorded that petitioner has made payment voluntarily in DRC 3 for the said amount as per provisions of Section 73(5) of the WBGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the present case admittedly it has not been utilized and it has been reversed and as such petitioner is not liable to pay interest in view of the amended provisions of Section 50 sub-section (3) of the said Act substituted by Finance Act, 2022 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 2017.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and legal position and submission of the parties and particularly taking into consideration the substituted provisions of Section 50(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, the petitioner is not liable to pay interest as per impugned communication dated 2nd May, 2018 and as per the view taken by this Court, all legal consequences will follow.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1495
Disallowance u/s 14A - claim of interest - HELD THAT:- Both the parties submitted that this issue is squarely covered in assessee’s own case by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in [2020 (10) TMI 1021 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein the Hon’ble ITAT remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to examine the facts and figures of the case in the light of our observations made above in order to arrive at a final conclusion as to whether disallowance u/s 14A is to be made and if so, then the amount thereof which in no case should exceed the exempted income earned by assessee during the year under appeal.
Nature of expenses - Guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat related to capital work-in-progress which needs to be capitalized - assessee submitted that the certificate of utilization was already furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the loans on which guarantee fees was paid were utilized for construction of power plant and there was no capital work-in-progress in respect of such loans borrowed - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case in [2020 (10) TMI 1021 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein CIT(A) directed to verify the certificate filed during the appellate proceedings that the loans on which guarantee fees was paid were utilized for construction of power plants at that time and there was no capital work-in-progress in respect of such loans during the Financial Year 2014-15. Both the assessee counsel as well as the Ld. D.R. could not place on record what is the giving effect order passed by the A.O. thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore this ground no. 2 is also set aside to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D while determining the income under the provisions of MAT - HELD THAT:- As this case is already remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification for the earlier two issues under consideration for the Assessment Year 2015-16, this issue is also remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the same and allow the submission of the assessee, if the same is found to be is in order
-
2022 (12) TMI 1494
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO erroneously allowed this taxpayer’s section 80P deduction claim representing interest derived from deposits made in cooperative banks - HELD THAT:- We find merit in assessee’s arguments in light of this tribunal’s recent order in Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2022 (1) TMI 419 - ITAT PUNE] though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of sub-section (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a cooperative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-operative societies, therefore, the interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d)
Thus as the A.O while framing the assessment had taken a possible view, and allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with co-operative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT was in error in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for dislodging the same.
Accordingly, finding no justification on the part of the Pr. CIT, who in exercise of his powers under Sec. 263 of the Act, had dislodged the view that was taken by the A.O as regards the eligibility of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), we set-aside his order and restore the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3).
Thus PCIT’s revision directions stand reversed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1493
Validity of reassessment order passed u/ss.143(3)/147 on the basis of notice u/s.148 issued by non jurisdictional A.O - validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O i.e. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai for framing of the impugned assessment u/ss. 143(3)/147 - whether or not the assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai vide order passed u/ss.143(3)/147 on the basis of notice issued u/s.148 by the ITO, Ward1(1), Raipur i.e. a non jurisdictional A.O is sustainable in the eyes of law?
HELD THAT:- The assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee were initiated by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur vide notice u/s.148 dated 23.03.2015. Subsequently, the ITO, Ward- 1(1), Raipur had transferred the case record of the assessee on 12.05.2015 to ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai. The ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai had, thereafter, on the basis of notice u/s.148 dated 23.03.2015 (supra) proceeded with and framed the assessment vide his order u/ss.143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016. Ostensibly, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, i.e., jurisdictional officer had not issued any notice u/s.148 of the Act but had acted upon that as was issued by the ITO, Ward1(1), Raipur i.e. a non-jurisdictional officer on 23.03.2015.
It is not the case of the department that the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was transferred from ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur to ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai vide an order passed by the appropriate authority u/s.127 of the Act. Also, no material had been placed before me by the Ld. DR which would reveal that as the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur at the time of issuance of notice u/s.148 dated 23.03.2015 was duly vested with the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, which, thereafter, had validly been transferred to the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, therefore, as per Section 129 of the Act the assessment framed by the latter on the basis of notice u/s.148 dated 23.03.2015 issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur could not be faulted with.
On the basis of the aforesaid facts, as stated by Mr. R.B Doshi, the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, the framing of the impugned assessment u/ss.143(3)/147 dated 25.03.2016 by the ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai on the basis of notice issued u/s. 148 dated 23.03.2015 by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur i.e. an officer who at the relevant point of time was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, was devoid and bereft of any force of law. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1492
Validity of Re-assessment order framed by non-jurisdictional officer - scope of instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 as revising the earlier existing monetary limit for assigning the cases to ITOs/ACs/DCs w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - HELD THAT:- As per the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, dated 31.01.2011 the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee who is located in a mofussil area i.e. Raipur and had in compliance to the notice u/s. 148, dated 18.06.2013 filed a non-corporate return on 05.07.2013 for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.2010-11 declaring an income of Rs. 9,47,500/- was vested with the ITO, Ward 1(3), Raipur [which w.e.f. 15.11.2014 was transferred to ITO-1(2), Raipur].
Although notice u/s. 148, dated 18.06.2013 was issued within the stipulated time period, however, the same was issued by the DCIT-1(1), Raipur, i.e., an A.O who pursuant to the CBDT Instruction No.1 of 2011, dated 31.01.2011 was not vested with jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration. On the other hand as the ITO, Ward-1(3), Raipur [succeeded by ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur w.e.f. 15.11.2014] who as per the aforesaid CBDT Instruction (supra) was at the relevant point of time vested with the exclusive pecuniary jurisdiction over the case of the assessee for the year under consideration had not issued any notice u/s. 148 of the Act, and had proceeded with on the basis of the notice u/s. 148 dated 18.06.2013 issued by the DCIT-1(1), Raipur i.e. a non-jurisdictional Officer, therefore, no valid jurisdiction could have been assumed by him for framing the impugned assessment vide order passed u/s. 143(3)(sic), dated 31.03.2015.
Thus the assessment framed in the case of the present assessee by the ITO-1(2), Raipur vide order u/s. 143(3)(sic) dated 31.03.2015 on the basis of notice u/s. 148 dated 18.06.2013 issued by the DCIT-1(1), Raipur i.e. a non-jurisdictional A.O, is devoid and bereft of any force of law, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1491
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - payment made to non residents - HELD THAT:- Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act, vide order [2015 (2) TMI 1400 - ITAT CHENNAI] the Tribunal has noted that neither the Assessing nor the ld. CIT(A) discussed the factual aspects of the issue and therefore, the issue has been remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine all the facts and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. It appears according to the submissions made by both the parties that the AO has already passed the order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A).
We are of the considered opinion that similar issue raised in the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12 should also go back to the ld. CIT(A) to a decision on facts and also on law. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law.
Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh after obtaining remand report on the fresh evidences produced by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings.
Both the grounds raised by the assessee are also remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1490
Illegal gratification - Culpability/guilt of public servant - relevant evidences - proof of demand - Presumption of law - scope of expressions "may presume", "shall presume" and "presumptions of mixed law and fact" - Circumstantial Evidence - hostile witness - Whether, in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution?
HELD THAT:- The cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given are stated in Section 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 66, Section 67(2), Section 78. Proof of documents, whether public or private, including execution of such documents etc.
Section 20 of the Act deals with presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. It uses the expression “shall be presumed” in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) unless the contrary is proved. The said provision deals with a legal presumption which is in the nature of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the Section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that during trial, it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification.
In STATE OF MADRAS VERSUS A. VAIDYANATHA IYER [1957 (9) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT], it was observed that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act which is similar to Section 20 of the Act under consideration would arise where illegal gratification has been accepted, then the presumption introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused. The legislature has used the words “shall presume” and not “may presume” which means that the presumption has to be raised as it is a presumption of law and therefore it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption. Further, the presumptions of law constitute a branch of jurisprudence unlike a case of presumption of fact which is discretionary.
The conclusive proof gives an artificial probative effect by the law to certain facts. No evidence is allowed to be produced with a view to combat that effect. When a statute makes certain facts final and conclusive, evidence to disprove such facts is not to be allowed.
Circumstantial Evidence - hostile witness - HELD THAT:- This Court cautioned that even if a witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. It is for the judge as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared “hostile” does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a “hostile witness” if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
Thus, there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. JAYARAJ VERSUS STATE OF A.P. [2014 (3) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT] and P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VERSUS THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS. [2015 (9) TMI 1666 - SUPREME COURT] with the three judge Bench decision in N. NARSINGA RAO VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [2000 (12) TMI 892 - SUPREME COURT], with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
The question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as:- In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
........
|
