|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1486 Records
-
2020 (3) TMI 1186
Extension of expiry dates of interim order in the event of Lockdown in the event of Corona Virus outbreak - HELD THAT:- Taking suo moto cognizance of the aforesaid extraordinary circumstances, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, it is hereby ordered that in all matters pending before this court and courts subordinate to this court, wherein such interim orders issued were subsisting as on 16.03.2020 and expired or will expire thereafter, the same shall stand automatically extended till 15.05.2020 or until further orders, except where any orders to the contrary have been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in any particular matter, during the intervening period.
This order be uploaded on the website of this Court and be conveyed to all the Standing Counsel, UOI, GNCTD, DDA, CIVIC AUTHORITIES, Delhi High Court Bar Association, all the other Bar Associations of Delhi, as well as to all District Courts subordinate to this court.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1185
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Period of limitation - Financial Debt - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - HELD THAT:- An Acknowledgment does not create any new right and it extends the limitation period as per decision P. SREEDEVI VERSUS P. APPU [1990 (8) TMI 412 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - When a Debtor makes an acknowledgment of his liability to pay a Debt, it would mean that he was admitting a subsisting liability to pay. The burden lies on the Creditor to prove that an acknowledgment was made within time. An acknowledgment in writing must indicate Jural Relationship as that of ‘Debtor’ and ‘Creditor’ between the parties.
As far as the present case present case is concerned the pendency of OA No. 310 of 2010 (filed on 14.7.2010) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal -III Kolkata will not preclude the first Respondent/bank to file the application under Section 7 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority. If a party claiming the benefit of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had failed to secure relief in favour of earlier proceeding not because of any defect or Jurisdiction or some other cause of like nature, he cannot derive the benefit of the ingredients of Section 14 of the Act. By virtue of Deed of Guarantee Corporate Debtor being a‘Corporate Person’ owes debt to the Bank.In the present case the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is the Guarantor and in the year 2008, undertook to repay the debt in case of default by the Principal Borrower. As per Section 3(8) of the Code ‘Corporate Debtor’ means a Corporate Person who owes debt of any person.
This Tribunal keeping in mind the present facts and circumstances of the instant case in an integral fashion, which float on the surface case comes to an inescapable conclusion that there is an acknowledgment of ‘Debt’ on various dates like 2.2.07, 17.2.07, 3.8.07 for the loan facilities availed by Mahaveer Construction the Letters of Guarantee Acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor (M/s Surana Metals Ltd.) on 16.9.10, 3.3.12, 27.5.15, 24.10.16 executed by the Appellant and on 8.12.18 by the Surana Metals Ltd. etc. This apart, here is an acknowledgment of Debt by the Principal Borrower but also the Corporate Debtor on 27.5.15 & 8.12.18 respectively.The object of specifying time limit for limitation is undoubtedly based on ‘Public Policy’.The application projected before the Adjudicating Authority(NCLT) Kolkata Bench, on 13.2.19 is well within limitation and not barred by Limitation.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1184
Valuation - 3MM Stranded Ply wire - related party transaction - applicability of Section 4 (1) (b) of CEA, 1944 - to be valued at 110% of the cost of production of such goods as per CAS-4 as envisaged in Rule 10 (a) read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 or not? - HELD THAT:- The authorities below have concluded that valuation under Section 4 (1) (b) has to be adopted and not the transaction value mainly on account of the fact that the six units are inter-connected undertakings. However, from the Order-in-Original or the impugned order there is no discussion how the buyers are related persons. As per Rule 10 (a) of the Valuation Rules only if the buyers and seller are related in the manner specified under the sub-clause (ii), (iii), (iv) of Clause-(b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the valuation as alleged in the SCNs will come into application. In the present case, apart from the units being inter-connected undertakings there is nothing to show that the buyers and seller are related persons. There is no mutuality of interest or fund flow brought out by evidence on the part of the department.
Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1183
Valuation - bank collects charges for dishonouring of the cheques, which are recovered by the appellant from their clients - inclusion of such reimbursable charges in assessable value or not - Rule 5(1) of Service Tax [Determination of Value] Rules, 2006 - period involved is From Sept.’04 to Jun.’09 - HELD THAT:- There is dispute with the amount collected by the appellant from their clients is equal to the amount that the appellant pays to the bank due to dishonouring of cheques. Therefore, we are satisfied that the said expenses are reimbursable expenses.
By applying the rule of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] it is held that the demand against the appellant is not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1182
CENVAT Credit - input services - service tax paid on rent of premises which is used as office of the company outside the company - Department was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for credit of service tax paid towards rent as well as maintenance charges for the premises outside the factory - HELD THAT:- The restriction that credit can be availed for materials that has been brought into the factory is applicable only in the case of inputs and not that of input services. In regard to input services, it is immaterial whether the services are availed within the factory or outside the factory. It is only necessary that the manufacturer has to avail it in relation to the manufacture of the final product. In the present case, the department does not dispute that the said premises is used by the appellant as office for their manufacturing factory.
In NITCON INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-II [2014 (9) TMI 681 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the Tribunal has analyzed the very same issue and held that it is immaterial whether the rented premises is within the factory or outside but the same should be availed in the course of manufacture of final product.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1181
Imposition of penalty - irregularly availed CENVAT Credit - credit availed on the same invoice twice in the month of June 2014 - It is contended that, they had no intention to evade payment of Cenvat credit and they had already reversed the amounts on being pointed out by the department - HELD THAT:- There are no doubt that the appellant had wrongly availed Cenvat credit twice in the same invoice. It is not the case where one could have a doubt about the admissibility of such Cenvat credit. Evidently, nobody can legitimately claim Cenvat credit twice on one invoice. Similarly, with respect to the capital goods removed after use, they have reversed inadequate amount of Cenvat credit which remains undisputed.
The intention is self evident and the violation of Act and Rules are undisputed - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1180
Non-reimbursement of differential tax amount - Scope the mutual agreement between the parties - situation post change in tax regime from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax (GST) with effect from 01.07.2017 - grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the introduction of the GST, petitioner is required to pay tax which was not envisaged while entering into the agreement - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks from today ventilating the grievance. If such a representation is filed, the authority will consider and dispose of the same, in the light of the aforesaid revised guidelines dated 10.12.2018 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 30.04.2020 - No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till 30.04.2020.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1179
Provisional attachment of Current Bank Accounts - Jurisdiction to pass order - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - time limitation of validity of order passed.
Whether the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI and Additional Director General, DGGI are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- On a bare perusal of the CGST Act, 2017, it is absolutely clear that Section 3 equates the ‘Principal Commissioner of Central Tax’ as the “Principal Additional Director of Central Tax’ and the “Commissioner of Central Tax’ as the ‘Additional Director General of Central Tax’. One need not quibble with the wording as the meaning is plain and unambiguous. Furthermore, the fresh orders of provisional attachment has been passed by ‘Principal Additional Director of Central Tax’ who is the superior officer and therefore, as per Section 5(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 she possesses the power to pass the provisional attachment orders under Section 83 - the issue answered in favour of the Revenue.
Whether an order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, remains valid after the expiry of one year from the date of the order? - HELD THAT:- The authorities have acted in a blatantly highhanded and illegal manner by keeping the provisional attachments in a state of continuance for the period from 5th June, 2019 (when the first order of provisional attachment ceases to operate) till 31st October, 2019 (when fresh order for provisional attachment was passed). Section 83(2) is crystal clear that the provisional attachment shall cease upon expiry of one year. It was therefore incumbent on the authorities to either release the provisional attachment by informing the bank or by issuing a fresh order of provisional attachment, if the law so allowed. The failure to do the above is nothing short of being an act of highhandedness. Such actions of the authorities is an obloquy and reprehensible. No explanation has been provided for the same either in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions or by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities during hearing of arguments - the action is clearly in violation of the petitioners’ rights for carrying on business under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and under Article 300A of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners have been deprived of their property without authority of law - the actions of the Revenue in acting in contravention of Section 83(2) is condemnable, and accordingly costs are required to be imposed.
Whether the authorities can issue fresh order of provisional attachment/multiple orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of Section 83, it is evident that Section 83 does not provide for an extension of an order for provisional attachment and any such extension shall be dehors the statute. Section 83 empowers the competent authority to issue an order for provisional attachment of property including bank accounts if it is of the opinion that such a step is necessary for protecting the interest of government revenue. It is palpably clear that Section 83(2) permits continuation of a provisional attachment order for a period of one year from the date of order after which it ceases to remain in effect. However, there is nothing in the section which indicates that upon completion of the prescribed period, a fresh order cannot be issued - In the view point of the Court, after the expiry of the time period, the appropriate authority may be of the opinion that such an attachment is further required to protect the interest of government revenue, and may therefore, issue a fresh order upon compliance of the formalities in Section 83(1).
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1178
Seizure of documents - proceeding under Section 70 of the OGST Act - grievance of the petitioner is that, since the documents called for by the OGST Authority has been seized by the CGST Authority, he is not in a position to supply the documents to the OGST Authority - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to apply for copies of the Documents required by him before the CGST authority within 15 (fifteen) days from today. If such an application is filed, the copies of the documents sought for shall be supplied within a period of three weeks from the date of his application.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1177
Liability to pay interest tax on the interest earned - HELD THAT:- Controversy involved in the present case would clearly stand covered by the decision of this court in the case of Asman Investment Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2018 (2) TMI 1966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to deal with the facts and contentions in detail.
Question is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the appellant assessee. It is held that in the facts and under the circumstances of this case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is liable to pay interest tax on the interest earned by it.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1176
Stay petition - applications for interim stay - Demand of the assessment as per the provisions of Section 220(6) - HELD THAT:- This court while dealing in such matters, have come across many writ petitions preferred by the assessees, seeking intervention of this court under Art.226 for issue for direction and taking up applications for interim stay filed along with pending appeals. Even this court was apprised that the Appellate Authority are taking up the appeals, considering the predicament of such assessees including the petitioner, the directions having been issued, for consideration of at least interim In the instant case appeal filed has not been taken up rather the interim application, in such circumstances availed the remedy under Sec.220(6) 1961 Act, which resulted into impugned order Ext.P7, the order prima facie do not reflect any application of mind except reference to the contentions.
The officers who are competent to pass orders, are enjoined obligations to pass reasoned orders, which, according to the affected party, may not be sustainable in accordance with law. But such orders, if are passed in routine, cannot escape from the judicial scrutiny of this court. Be that as it may, in order to prevent further mis-carriage of justice and in the interest of justice, deem it appropriate issuing directions to the 2nd respondent to take a call on the application for interim stay in support of the appeal Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1175
Offence u/s 276(c) (2) - willful failure on the part of the petitioner for non payment of huge tax liability - accused has not paid the huge tax liability at the time of filing the return of income - intention from the petitioner for willful evading of payment of tax - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the last date for filing the returns for the financial year 2012-2013 was on or before 05.08.2013. The respondent did not hand over the book of accounts seized from the petitioner ill 05.08.2013. Therefore, there is three months delay in payment of income tax and the petitioner filed return of income on 31.01.2014. Thereafter, it was returned on 31.03.2015 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 4,08,04,345/-. Thereafter, the petitioner paid tax as demanded by the respondent on 13.03.2018, for which the respondent also issued a letter on 24.03.2018 acknowledging the receipt of tax.
Provision to punish the accused, there must be wilful attempt to evade payment of tax, he must be in possession of the book with false entries, the person should have made false entries in the book of accounts and omitting any entry in the statement of accounts. The petitioner voluntarily disclosed the undisclosed income to the respondent on the inspection conducted u/s 132 on 18.12.2012. Therefore, there is no intention from the petitioner for willful evading of payment of tax. Admittedly, the respondent on the inspection dated 18.12.2012, had seized the relevant book of accounts and as such the petitioner could not able to file the return of income on or before 05.08.2013. Therefore, the petitioner had no wilful intention to evade tax as alleged by the respondent.
Petitioner had paid the entire tax amount on 13.03.2018 and the respondent had also acknowledged the same by the acknowledgment dated 24.03.2018. Therefore, the offence under Section 276 (c ) (2) of the Income Tax Act is not at all attracted as against the petitioner herein, and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner is nothing but clear abuse of process of law. As such it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be quashed - criminal original petition is allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1174
Stay petition - recovery proceedings - Freezing of bank account - petitioner's appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the petitioner was required to deposit 20% of the outstanding amount - HELD THAT:- As stated that applications were preferred on 10/2/2020 and 28/2/2020 informing the Commissioner of Income Tax that 20% of the outstanding demand has already been recovered by the Department and, therefore, the other bank accounts may not be freezed.
Respondent Department has fairly stated before this Court that some breathing time be granted to the Department to decide the applications preferred in the matter.
Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Department to pass appropriate order keeping in view the amount already recovered and the outstanding amount which is outstanding against the petitioner.
The Commissioner shall decide the aforesaid applications by taking into account the CBDT Circular dated 29/2/2016 and 31/7/2017 within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1173
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- Legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind.
Considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on legal issue.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1172
Income accrued in India - Claim of deduction u/s.90 - tax the salary income and the foreign allowance received by the assessee for services rendered outside India - Article 15(1) of India – Austria DTAA agreement and section 90 and section 5(2) of the Act - bar in law for receiving the money in India - HELD THAT:- From the facts of the case it is apparent that during the previous relevant to AY 2014-15, the assessee qualifies as a non-resident in India and as a tax resident in Austria. The salary and allowances are earned by the assessee in respect of employment rendered in Austria due to his foreign assignment. Hence, the first two conditions enumerated under Article 15(1) of the India-Austria DTAA stands satisfied. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of exemption in regard to his salary income as per the provisions of Article 15(1) of the India-Austria DTAA in the return of income filed by him is appropriate.
In the case of DIT Vs. Prahlad Vijendra Rao [2010 (11) TMI 803 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]on which reliance placed by the assessee, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that under section 15 of the Act even on accrual basis salary income is taxable i.e. it becomes taxable irrespective of the fact whether it is actually received or not; only when services are rendered in India it becomes taxable by implication. However, if services are rendered outside India such income would not be taxable in India.
Other objections raised by the Ld. AO that evidence was not produced for receiving the foreign allowance outside India and the bank account of the assessee maintained abroad was not produced is not relevant because the facts of the case establishes that the salary and the foreign allowance was received in India for the services rendered abroad and by virtue of DTAA and the Act, there is no bar in law for receiving the money in India - We direct the Ld.AO to delete the tax imposed on the assessee with respect to his salary income which includes foreign allowance earned by him outside India during the relevant assessment year. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1171
Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - concealment of income - disclosure of on- money income was made only due to the survey action by the Department and the on-money income was not accounted for in the regular books of account of the assessee on the date of survey - HELD THAT:- Assessee had offered the amount as additional business income pursuant to survey operation for the ongoing year, which was duly incorporated in the books of accounts and in the regular return of income with taxes duly paid. Since the Assessing Officer was of the view that the “unaccounted income” of ₹ 3.8 crores was offered to tax by the assessee.
As the same came to the surface only because of survey and that had there been no survey, then that amount could not have been brought to tax. Therefore, it was held that the ‘onmoney’ received was unaccounted income which was admitted by the assessee when it was confronted with the ‘diary’ during the survey. However, we are of the view that the conclusion of the AO that amount was not finding mention in the regular books of accounts is over-sweeping over statement, because the fact remains that the books of accounts were not “closed”, then as the year was yet not over.
It was not the case of the Revenue that the books were completed, accounts were audited and returns were filed and thereafter only the ‘unaccounted’ income of ₹ 3.8 crores came to the surface because of the survey by the Department. This particular facts, according to us, is the inherent disability/challenge in any disclosure if it pertains to the “ongoing financial year”. The year in the case of the assessee being the first year of operation, it cannot even be implied that that the amount pertained to earlier year(s) of its business. See R UMEDBHAI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD [2016 (9) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1170
Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 36(l)(iii) - diversion of interest bearing fund - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the own fund of the assessee as on 31st March 2012 was excess to the amount of investment as evident from the Balance Sheet of the assessee - investment was made by the assessee for ₹ 2.43 crores out of its own funds despite the fact that the payment was made by the assessee out of the HDFC OD account as discussed above. In holding so we place our reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 753 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - we direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the Appellant u/s 91 disallowed - whether rate of tax in foreign country needs to be determined after considering the gross receipts or the net receipts/profit embedded in such gross receipts? - HELD THAT:- It is revealed that the amount of tax/super tax needs to be divided by the whole amount of income to work out the rate of tax. The word used whole amount of income denotes the income which signifies after the expenses.
The word gross receipts have not been used therein. Even under the normal parlance, the income denotes only to the net profit i.e. gross receipts minus the expenses. Thus in our considered view, it is the only profit which should be considered while determining the rate of tax in the foreign country and the same needs to be compared with the rate of tax in India.
In the case on hand, we also note that the assessee has not given any working about the expenses incurred in the foreign country against the gross receipts. Thus in the absence of sufficient details, the AO had no alternate except to work out the proportionate amount of income eligible for relief under section 91 of the Act. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below.
We note that there is force in the alternate argument of the learned AR for the assessee claiming for the deduction of the taxes paid in the foreign country as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The amount of tax paid in a foreign country which is not eligible for benefit under section 91 of the Act, is expenditure eligible for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. It is because such tax was paid in the course of the business and the corresponding business receipts were made to tax in India. We hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction for the amount of foreign tax credit which was not allowed as tax relief under section 91 of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1169
Unexplained cash credits u/s.68 - Penny stock purchases - HELD THAT:- Additions made by Assessing Officer on account of detailed enquiries being carried out by Kolkata Investigation Directorate with regard to 84 penny stocks company as well as SEBI. The modus operandi involving operators, intermediaries and the beneficiaries have already been detailed in the investigation report prepared and disseminated by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate. Similar investigations were also conducted by the Directorate of Investigation at Mumbai and Ahmedabad. After thorough investigation, the Assessing Officer concluded in his order at paragraph Nos.4.8 and 4.9.
Even before us, no new facts or circumstances have been placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities have also gone unrebutted, therefore, we find no reason to interfere into or to deviate from such findings of the authorities below and we uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the Assessee.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1168
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or not? - disallowance/addition on account of gratuity expenses - HELD THAT:- Regarding the claim of the assessee for the gratuity expenses, we note that the auditor in his tax auditor report has clearly mentioned that the impugned expenses are not allowable under the Act. But despite that the assessee did not make any disallowance in the computation of income and also contested for the deduction of the same till the learned CIT-A. It is transpired that there was the disclosure made by the tax auditor in the tax audit report furnished in form 3 CD. Thus it cannot be that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, the AO got information about the disallowance of the provision for gratuity from the tax audit report only.
AO has not carried out any investigation for detecting the claim of the assessee towards the provision for gratuity which was not allowable as deduction. See PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA - I [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] - we hold that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particular of income deliberately. Accordingly he cannot be visited with the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the given facts and circumstances.
Disallowance of the exhibition expenses under the provisions of section 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 - We note that claim of the assessee was not doubted by the authorities below. As such, the assessee has incurred expenses for the purpose of the business but the same was disallowed by virtue of the provisions of section 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 - Accordingly the same was deemed as income of the assessee by the operation of law. But the controversy arises whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income by claiming the deduction on account of exhibition expenses which was disallowed on account of nondeduction of TDS under section 195 - term inaccurate particular has not been defined under the Act. However various court including the Hon’ble Apex court defined the term as the details of claim made are not accurate, not according to the truth, not exact or erroneous. See RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particular of income deliberately. Accordingly he cannot be visited with the penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1167
Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 68 - reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- We find the AO in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing that assessee has received accommodation entry of ₹ 40 lacs from M/s. Sri Amarnath Finance Pvt. Ltd., a company controlled by Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain and Sh. Virender Kumar Jain who are known entry operators.
AO during the course of assessment proceedings has called for information from the assessee who filed the requisite documents such as the ITR, bank statement, PAN number, confirmation etc. of the lender company. We find the AO had issued notice u/s. 133 (6) to M/s. Sri Amarnath Finance Pvt. Ltd. who responded to such notice and filed the requisite documents as called for by the AO.
Force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the AO has examined the documents / confirmation in detail and adopted a possible view that the assessee has established the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction. It has been held in various decisions that action u/s. 263 can be taken only when there is lack of enquiry or no enquiry. However, in the instant case necessary enquiry was conducted. Therefore, merely because CIT does not agree with the manner of enquiry conducted by the AO he cannot substitute his own reasons and held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. See DWARKADHIS BUILDWELL PVT. LTD C/O N.K. JAIN, ADVOCATE NAYA BAZAR, BHIWANI VERSUS CIT HISAR [2019 (9) TMI 91 - ITAT DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
