|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1386 Records
-
2020 (10) TMI 1146 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- As the revenue has failed to disprove to the hilt on the basis of clinching evidence the authenticity of the claim of the assessee of having made purchases from the aforementioned parties, therefore, merely on the basis of the unproved claim of purchases no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could have been validly imposed on the assessee.
Restriction of the disallowance of entire purchases made by the A.O to 96% of the aggregate value of such purchases by the CIT(A), speaks for itself that the disallowance sustained in the hands of the assessee is merely backed by a process of estimation and not based on any concrete evidence.
No clinching material has been brought on record by the revenue which could disprove the authenticity of the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned parties, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) thus could have been validly imposed upon it. We thus not being able to find any infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), uphold the deletion of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by him. - Decided against revenue.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1145 - ITAT COCHIN
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - period of limitation of 6 months - Miscellaneous Petitions with regard to deduction u/s. 80P - HELD THAT:- Tribunal is a creature of the statute. It has not having power to read in or read out of a provision of law. The Legislature in its wisdom has laid down the law and the specific provision relating to the powers of rectification of mistakes in the order of the Tribunal is in section 254(2).
As per section 254(2) the Tribunal may at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, it could amend the same if the mistake apparent on record is brought to its notice by the assessee or by the AO.
It shows that the time limit of six months is binding on the hands of the Tribunal. This is in line with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. ITAT [2020 (2) TMI 129 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
As six month period from the end of the month in which the orders were passed has expired, the orders passed by the Tribunal in the above cases cannot be disturbed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1144 - ITAT KOLKATA
Reopening of assessment - basis of satisfaction recorded by some other authority (i.e. third party) like Sale Tax, Mumbai - Whether No Enquiry by the Assessing officer (AO) - Non recording own satisfaction - bogus purchase of packing materials - HELD THAT:- After going through the judgment passed by the in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the view that the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the specific information is legally valid. - Decided against assessee.
Bogus purchases - Assessee has filed all the documentary evidences for the purchase of packaging material from two parties namely (i) M/s DD Corporation and (ii) M/s Amit Trading Co. The assessee has also filed the copy of the purchase bill with challan of both the parties, party confirmation, registration certificate and statement of payment with bank statement which the assessee has already submitted before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in the shape of paper book. Assessee has also filed the documentary evidences before us in the shape of paper book mentioned above.
Documentary evidences filed by the assessee for substantiating the claim of assessee and establishing the genuineness of purchase of packing material from the afore-mentioned two parties which has not been falsified by the AO by making any enquiry or producing any documentary evidences contrary to the evidences filed by the assessee.
Even otherwise, Ld. DR has not filed any contrary evidences before us to falsify the claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1143 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - Disallowance u/s. 14A - HELD THAT:- We find that the reasons as recorded by Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 was also identical for both these Assessment Years in which there was no mention about escapement of income on account of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Facts being identical applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] we hold that the reopening of assessments for both these assessment is bad in law. Thus, Ground No.1 is allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Valuation - Detention of goods - Petitioner contended that, Authorities have raised frivolous queries - Manner in which adjudication order has been passed - Expiry of free time allowed by the shipping line and container freight station for clearance of imported cargo - vires of the Standing Order No.7493/99 dated 3rd December, 1999 and its subsequent amendment in Standing Order No.44/2016 dated 8th July, 2016, regarding PLATT Valuation of the Petitioner’s goods as being contrary to the Customs Act, 1962.
HELD THAT:- Despite exercising complete restraint, we cannot help but say that the entire conduct of the officer suggests a complete non-application of mind which to say the least must be deprecated. We feel that this entire saga was wholly avoidable. When the Court had issued notice on 10th September, 2020 and had passed the order on 22nd September, 2020 stating that the interim application would be taken up for consideration on 24th September, 2020, the concerned officer ought to have informed the Court about the status of the adjudication process and ought to have sought the leave of the Court for issuance of the order-in-original.
Even a bare perusal of the file which has been produced before the Court clearly shows that the order-in-original was signed on 24th September, 2020. It is only the date on which the order is signed, is the date on which the order is passed. Revenue authority cannot at their own whim and fancy, split an order viz. first pass the operative part of the order without any discussion or finding or reasons and then pass the speaking order with discussion and findings and conveniently choose dates such as in this case.
If this Writ Petition had not been filed and if this Court had not passed the order dated 06th October 2020, requiring the Officer to clear the confusion of the dates, neither this Court nor the Petitioner would have ever known the manner in which the Revenue- Authority pass orders.
We are left with no choice but to set aside the order in original dated “4th September, 2020 signed on 24th September, 2020 and issued on 24th September, 2020” in toto. Also in view of the above discussion, we direct the Respondent No.2 to depute another Officer in place and instead of the present Officer to hear the case of the Petitioner and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing pass a speaking order with reasons in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1141 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance Authorization Scheme - Doctrine of Estoppel - request for amendment of Bills of Lading - HELD THAT:- For the purpose of issuance of No Objection, provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 envisage the complete procedure for issuance of no objection certificate, ie for the purpose of amendment of a bill of entry or a shipping bill only after fulfilling certain conditions in the proviso.
It is trite law that circulars cannot assume the role of the Principal Act lest the provisions only a binding force. If at all the revenue is facing difficulties in accepting and processing applications for amendment of bills of lading, an amendment to the Principal Act can be suggested in accordance with law and till the pendency of the same, an Ordinance can also be issued. No such stand is taken as evident from Ext.P10 - the action of the respondent cannot be accepted, for, it is an utter violation of statutory provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act.
Respondents are directed to issue no objection certification seeking amendment of the bill in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1140 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Import of Gold from Korea - Valid import or not - case of Revenue is that respondent is neither a nominated bank nor a nominated agency as specified by Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) or in possession of status of star and premium trading houses and therefore, is not permitted to import the gold - contravention of the import policy envisaged by DGFT based on regulations promulgated by Reserve Bank of India - Confiscation - Penalty.
HELD THAT:- The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is an Act to provide for development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports into, and augmenting exports from, India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Act deals with Powers of the Central Government to make provisions relating to imports and exports. Section 3(2) empowers the Central Government to make a provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in a specific class of clauses and subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be made by or under the order the import or export of goods or services of technology, by an order published in the official gazette - from perusal of the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy, it is evident that amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy can be made by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act or by DGFT by issuing a Notification under para 2.07 of the Foreign Trade Policy. The change in categorization from free to restricted can be made in respect of import of goods, only by an amendment and the same cannot be done by DGFT by issuing a Circular.
In the instant case, admittedly, the gold medallions and gold granules were imported on 03.07.2017. Thereafter the DGFT by Notification dated 25.08.2017 has restricted the import of gold from South Korea - thus on the date, the gold medallions were imported i.e., 03.07.2017 there was no restriction and the restriction was imposed by the Central Government vide Notification dated 25.08.2017. In other words, there was no restriction with regard to import of gold medallion on the date the same was imported by the respondent - Similarly, the gold granules were imported on 21.09.2017 and thereafter DGFT issued a Notification dated 18.12.2019 by which import policy was amended and gold in any form was allowed only to be imported through nominated agencies as notified by the Reserve Bank of India in case of Banks and for other agencies by the DGFT. Thus, it is evident that on the date when the gold granules were imported i.e., on 21.09.2017, there was no restriction on its import and the restriction was imposed subsequently on 18.12.2019 by the DGFT by way of Notification. Thus, when gold medallions and gold granules were imported, they were freely importable and the same was brought under the restricted category subsequently.
Thus, the Reserve Bank of India itself has clarified that regulation of import / export of any item including importing of gold granules is in the domain of Ministry of Commerce / DGFT and is governed by Export-Import Policy / Foreign Trade Policy as prevalent at the relevant point of time.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1139 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
100% EOU - Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of statutory powers under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1962 made applicable to service tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had fixed the monetary limit in respect of filing the appeal at ₹ 10 Lakhs. Subsequently, the aforesaid limit was modified to ₹ 15 Lakhs vide instructions dated 11.12.2015.
Thus, it is axiomatic that instructions dated 17.08.2011, 11.12.2015 and instruction dated 22.08.2019 operate in different fields and instruction dated 22.08.2019 does not deal with Customs Act. Therefore, the monetary limit for filing appeal as prescribed in the instruction dated 11.12.2015 in respect of appeals arising under the Customs Act before this court applies to this appeal and since, the amount in dispute is less than ₹ 15,00,000/-, therefore, in view of instruction dated 11.12.2015 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, the appeal cannot be entertained.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1138 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Smuggling - Baggage Rules - high value electronic items, like, Mobile phone sets of different reputed brands, Sandisk pen drives, USB flash drives, RAM cards, Laptops, Watches of foreign origin - Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellants have imported goods in violation of baggage rules and have also accepted the same in their respective statements. However, it is to be seen as to whether the valuation adopted by the Department is in accordance with law and correct and as to whether the penalties were imposed in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The show-cause notice states that the value of the recovered goods has been ascertained on the basis of reference value found in different product websites as detailed in Annexure A. However, on-going through the said Annexure, it is seen that in fact there are 4 Annexures A, B, C and D, for the goods seized from the 4 appellants respectively. On-going through such Annexure, we do not find that though the Annexures contain details like description, Model, make, country of origin. However, the addresses of web sites from where the values are taken are not mentioned. Copies or screenshots of websites displaying the value of the products is not also made available. Similarly, there was no reasoning, for adoption of such values and the Rules under which the same is arrived at, has been given either in the SCN or OIO.
Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The value adopted by the department is neither logical nor rational and nor on any legal basis. Under the circumstances, we find that while holding that the good are liable for confiscation and the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112(b), the request for reducing the penalties can be accepted. Accordingly, the redemption fines and personal penalties imposed on the appellants is reduced.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1137 - CESTAT MUMBAI
EPCG Scheme - non-fulfilment of export obligation - Customs Notification No.64/2008-C.E., dated 09.05.2008 - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant submits that it had already achieved the export obligation against the goods imported by it, we are of the view that the adjudged demands cannot be confirmed on the appellant on the ground of non-fulfilment of the export obligation - However, since the facts regarding achievement of export obligation are required to be examined at the original stage, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documentary evidences for a proper satisfaction of the fact that the export obligation in respect of the imports made under EPCG licence had already been achieved by the appellant.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1136 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Smuggling Gold - applicant would submit that there is no embargo under the Customs Act from seeking pre-arrest bail - Section 108 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- An offence under the Customs Act is undoubtedly an economic offence of grave nature and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a number of cases, including in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that power under Section 438 Cr.PC being an extraordinary remedy has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences, and that economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society.
The applicant has not yet been made an accused. But he apprehends arrest. There are no sufficient material to show that he will be arrested. Merely because he was questioned for 60 hours by the Customs Department does not indicate that he is intended to be made an accused - The fact that the applicant was in constant contact with one of the prime witness, namely Swapna Suresh, and that he had even volunteered to help her by contacting his Chartered Accountant and asking him to assist her in managing her finances indicates that there is a fair possibility that applicant knew about the involvement of Swapna Suersh in the alleged smuggling activity.
The power of the Customs Department to question the applicant under Section 108 cannot be curtailed by granting anticipatory bail. The relief sought for is undoubtedly premature - the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail - Bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Rejection of application filed under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - rejection of application without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had conveyed to all the departmental heads that the scheme is a bold endeavour to unload the baggage relating to the legacy taxes, namely, central excise and service tax which have been subsumed under GST and to allow business to make a new beginning and to focus entirely on GST. It was emphasized that all officers and staff should partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success. It was highlighted that dispute resolution and amnesty are the two components of this scheme. The dispute resolution component is aimed at liquidating the legacy cases whereas the amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability to pay the tax dues.
On the one hand there is a letter of respondent No.3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at ₹ 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of ₹ 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner’s tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - there are no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019.
Though the scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand, the primary focus as succinctly put across by the Hon’ble Finance Minister in her budget speech is to unload the baggage of pending litigations in respect of service tax and central excise from pre-GST regime so that the business can move on. This was also the view expressed by the Board in the circular dated 27th August, 2019 wherein all the officers and staff working under the Board were called upon to partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success which in turn will enable the administrative machinery to fully focus in the smooth implementation of GST. This is the broad picture which the officials must have in mind while considering an application (declaration) seeking amnesty under the scheme.
The rejection of the application (declaration) of the Petitioner under the scheme communicated vide email dated 27th January, 2020 is not justified - petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1134 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - case in the plaint is that on account of absence of the mandatory notice under S. 286 of the Companies Act, 1956, being served on the petitioner / plaintiff, the meeting convened by the Board of Directors and the so called board resolution dated 2nd February, 2014 is void - Time Limitation.
HELD THAT:- Although the respondents herein had raised a ground of limitation in respect of the challenge to the sale-deed of the year 2014 on the basis of S. 242 (2) (g) of the Companies Act, 2013, at this stage it does not appear that the said ground has been accepted by the NCLT. Quite to the contrary, the company petition is admitted, and as noticed earlier the NCLT has also held that if ultimately the transaction is held to be ultra vires, consequential reliefs can be granted.
Jurisdiction of the civil court - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position of law that under S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the civil court can entertain and try all suits of a civil nature, except any suits of which, the cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is now well settled that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be lightly inferred in view of the plenary jurisdiction conferred on the civil court under S. 9 of the CPC and any plea, seeking exclusion of such jurisdiction, has to be jealously guarded. However, at the same time a legal provision creating a bar of jurisdiction of the civil court, are required to be strictly interpreted and given effect to. In other words, although the exclusion of jurisdiction, cannot be lightly inferred, wherever there is a provision excluding such jurisdiction, either expressly or by necessary implication, the same has to be given effect to in its letter and spirit.
The writ petition is without any merits and is dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1133 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation of its finished goods, i.e. biscuits, which were transported up to the customers’ premises - place of removal - period from January, 2005 to September, 2007 - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM VERSUS M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT]. By this judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that that the assessee is legally eligible to avail credit on outward transportation availed from place of removal upto a certain point, whether it is a depot or customer’s premises.
In the instant case, the availment of credit on outward transportation from factory gate to customer’s place pertains to period prior to April 2008 i.e. prior to period when the definition of input service was amended - Since the credit eligibility finally stands decided by the Apex Court in favour of assessee, the impugned order is liable to be sustained.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1132 - SC ORDER
Exemption from GST - mobility devices - Attorney General states that there could be no objection to the petitioner pursuing a representation.
HELD THAT:- List the Writ Petition for final disposal, in March 2021.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1131 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Application for release of seized goods which are perishable in nature - HELD THAT:- An application dated 29th September, 2020 has been preferred by the writ applicants addressed to the Superintendent, office of the Commisisoner of Cetral GST, Subhanpura, Vadodara under Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 for provisional release of 7312 bags weighing 252,120 kg - At this point of time, we are not inclined to go into the issue with regard to the legality and validity of the action initiated by the authority under the provisions of the Act.
Having regard to the fact that the goods seized are perishable in nature, the authority concerned are directed to look into the application dated 29th September, 2020, annexed at page-83A and pass appropriate order within a period of one week from today in accordance with law - application disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1130 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - absence of appropriate forum - absence of constitution of Tribunal under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the absence of constitution of Tribunal under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 the petitioners have no other alternative remedy but to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the same.
This writ petition be connected with Writ Tax No. 1262 of 2019 and shall be listed on the date fixed in the said case.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1129 - JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Valuation - Sale of vehicles - Demand of differential amount of token tax/fees of the vehicles sold - period from 01.08.2019 to 26.11.2019 - liability of seller to pay such amount - HELD THAT:- As per Section 4 of the J&K Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, the liability to pay the tax is on the registered owner or the person who has the possession of the vehicle and not that of the seller of the vehicle.
The registration of the vehicle or payment of token tax was not rejected on the Portal as for all the vehicles registration certificates were issued. All of a sudden, the petitioner received a communication dated 22.06.2020, from the Transport Department directing it to deposit differential amount of token tax of the vehicles sold after issuance of SRO 492 dated 01.08.2019. It was the difference of tax on the amount of GST levied on sale of vehicle, on which the token tax was not charged earlier. It was with reference to the clarification issued by the Transport Department on 26.11.2019, which provided that the token tax/ road tax is to be levied on the aggregate cost of the vehicle which includes basic cost plus GST - It could not be disputed that the liability to pay the aforesaid tax is on the buyer of the vehicle who has to utilize the same on the public roads. The fault cannot be attributed to the petitioner for the reason that even the invoice was to be generated from the Vahaan Portal as per the Government Order dated 12.10.2017.
Any clarification issued by the department to a notification cannot have retrospective effect - the department issued the clarification on 26.11.2019. It is not in dispute that after the issuance of the aforesaid clarification the token tax is being calculated on the value of the vehicle including the amount of GST.
The impugned notices directing the petitioner to deposit the differential amount of tax for the period from 03.08.2019 to 26.11.2019, are set aside - petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1128 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GST, HIMACHAL PRADESH
Detention of goods and vehicle - validity of EWB - the vehicle no. in the Part B of the EWB not updated - contravention of Rule 138(5) of CGST/SGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No. 64/38/2018, dated 14-9-2018 - HELD THAT:- It appears that there is no dispute regarding quantity of goods and further all concerns documents were placed before the proper officer. It is a fact that the E-way Bill for the material in question was generated at 05:52 pm on 1-11-2018 and further updated on 5-11-2018 at 06:38 pm in which all relevant detail were entered. Due to break down of material carrying vehicle the material were transhipped to another vehicle. The E-way Bill of the consignment which was produced before the proper officer pertains to the previous vehicle. The only mistake the E-way Bill part-B was that the number of the vehicle in which the material was transhipped had not been entered at the time of inspection of the vehicle. The appellant updated the E-way Bill and the number of the second vehicle was updated in the part-B of the E-way Bill at 11:52 am dated 6-11-2018. Despite the updation of the part-B of EWB the Ld. Respondent detained the vehicle and imposed tax/penalty to the tune of ₹ 16,28,23,728/-.
As there is no doubt that the taxpayer has made procedural lapse and violated the provisions of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 and HPGST Rules 138(10) which says as “Provided further that where, under circumstances of an exceptional nature, including transshipment, the goods cannot be transported within validity period of E-way Bill, the transporter may extend the validity period after uploading the detail in part B of the FORM GST EWB-01, if required”. Therefore appellant should have updated the part 8 of EWB before resuming his journey further. So keeping in view the above facts the appellant is liable to pay minor penalty.
The tax and penalty deposited by the appellant under Section 129(3) may be refunded and a penalty of Rs. Ten Thousand only is imposed on the taxpayer under Section 122(xiv) of the Act - appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1127 - ITAT DELHI
Rejection of books of accounts - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the two observations made by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be justifiable reasons to reject the books of accounts. Further, in case where the books of accounts are rejected u/s 145(3) then the assessment ought to have been completed u/s 144 of the Act. Section 144 provides for best judgment method of assessment by Assessing Officer and to complete the assessment u/s 144(1), the Assessing Officer has to afford an opportunity to the assessee to that extent.
Since, the amounts have been duly reflected in the books of accounts and the reasons specified by the Assessing Officer are not justifiable and since the assessment has not been completed following the due procedure as mentioned u/s 144, we hereby hold that no addition in the case of the assessee is called for.
Addition u/s.69A r/w Sec. 115BBE - unexplained cash found during search - search and seizure operation u/s 132 - Old currency notes which had zero intrinsic value as on the date of operation of locker No. 487 - HELD THAT:- The amount has been added as unexplained money u/s 69 A for the assessment year 2017-18. Hence, it needs to be considered as to whether for the period between 01.04.2016 to 25.04.2016, possession of these notes have any intrinsic value or not. On this issue, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs Andhra Pradesh Yarns Combines Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 66 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
Locker was last operated on 29.10.2015. The fact that the locker has not been operated in the assessment year 2017 -18 is before the revenue authorities. Hence, the amount deemed to have been undisclosed income for the assessment year 2016-17 whereas the amount has been brought to tax for the assessment year 2017 -18. Hence, the addition made in the AY 2017-18 cannot be upheld. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
............
|
