|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1359 Records
-
2015 (4) TMI 1327
Violation of the provisions of FEMA - penalty u/s 13 (1) of FEMA imposed - freezing the bank account as exercised by Assistant Director under Section 37 (3) of FEMA - HELD THAT:- The above provision empowers the Assistant Director to exercise powers under the Income Act 1961. Thus the communication dated 17/11/2014 freezing the petitioners' fixed deposit account in Bank of Baroda is submitted to be in terms of Section 132 (3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. However, in terms of Sections 132 (8) of the Income Tax Act 1961 the life of such a freezing order is only 60 days.
Admittedly, the period of 60 days have long expired after the communication dated 17/11/2014. Mr. Vaze, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate is not able to show any extension granted or any other communication thereafter freezing the account. Consequently, the communication dated 17/11/2014 is no longer valid in law and the same is quashed and set side. For the purpose of this petition we have not examined the larger issue viz. the scope of Section 37 of FEMA and its applicability even after the show cause notice has been issued by the Adjudicating Authority.
We do not interfere with the show cause notice dated 18/12/2014. However, the Adjudicating Authority shall dispose of the show cause noticed dated 18/12/2014 as expeditiously as possible after following the principles of Natural Justice.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1326
Seeking Interim order of stay of further proceedings - FIR against the applicants herein for the offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and Section 15H(A) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - HELD THAT:- The law in this regard is well-settled. Although the police has the power to investigate the offence alleged against the applicant and chargesheet has been filed, the Court will not be able to take cognizance in view of the specific bar. The investigation carried out by the police can be used for the purpose of filing a complaint in writing before the appropriate court. To be precise, whatever materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer could be used by the authority for the purpose of filing a complaint before the competent court.
Applicants have been able to make out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order of stay of further proceedings of Sessions Case pending
-
2015 (4) TMI 1325
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Disallowance of claim as assessee was acting as a contractor for the owner of the plots of land, on the ground that, the sale deed for land was executed in favour of the purchaser of the plots, and purchaser of the plots have entered into construction contract for construction of units - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of Narayan Reality Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 221 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein the Tribunal has held that no disallowance can be made for deduction under section 80IB(10) by treating the assessee as a contractor and not developer.
We, therefore, following the above decision of the Tribunal, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1324
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - assessee had sought inclusion of the two companies as comparables before the CIT(A) of Ace Software Exports Ltd.and Cressanda Solutions Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The annual report of these two companies were also furnished by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). A write up giving business description of the above two comparable companies which was filed by the Assessee before CIT(A).
In the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals), the above submissions were not considered by the CIT(Appeals) at all. We are therefore of the view that it would be just and appropriate to direct the TPO/AO to consider the comparability of these two companies.
Higher rate of depreciation of comparable companies - the limited request of assessee is to allow proper adjustments on account of rates of depreciation adopted by the comparable companies - HELD THAT:- In our view, the request of the assessee is proper and deserves to be accepted in the light of the decision of the Pune Bench cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee supra. We accordingly direct the TPO to allow appropriate adjustments while working out the margins of the assessee as well as comparable cases.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1323
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - CIT directed the AO to withdraw deduction allowed u/s 80IB - CIT held that because of non filing of audit report the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction,that the AO had not considered the issue of non filing of report - order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - HELD THAT:- As basic issue as to how the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue has not been discussed by the CIT.It is also a fact,as stated earlier,that the issue of 80IB deduction was agitated by the assessee before the FAA.In these circumstances the CIT should not have issued notice 263 - CIT had totally ignored the fact that the AO had in earlier nine years allowed the claim made by the assessee.It is true that the rule of res judicata is not applicable to the income tax proceedings.
Rule of consistency demands that without bringing distinguishing fact of the year under appeal with the facts of earlier years an opposite stand to the stand of earlier years should not be taken.The only difference noted is that in the year under appeal the assessee had not filed Audit Report before the A)O.But,the report was made available to the CIT and for disallowing the claim allowed in the earlier years he should have pin pointed the reasons for refusing it as to how same was different from the reports of earlier years.
An issue deliberated upon by the FAA,partially or fully,is out of preview of proceedings to be initiated u/s.263 of the Act.In our opinion,the order of the CIT fails on touchstone of the merger doctrine and therefore is not valid.We hold that the assessees are required to file audit reports,but filing it before the CIT would not disentitle it from claiming the deduction.The purpose behind filing the report is that no fictitious claim is made and the activities of the assessees are certified by a professional. Deductions, including 80IB of the Act are considered to be benevolent provisions - Considering the purpose behind the legislation the Hon’ble Courts have held that if the report is submitted at the time of active consideration of the claim it has to be taken as sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1322
Deduction u/s 80IB - manufacture or producing an article or thing - whether workers supplied by the contractor are also to be treated as workers employed by the assessee? - since the actual number of workers employed in the manufacturing process exceeded ten in number, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the condition of Section 80IB(2)(iv) have been fulfilled - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1321
Depreciation on intangible assets - 25% depreciation on Non-compete fee - CIT-A allowed the appeal of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Similar issue was considered in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd [2013 (11) TMI 1057 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that assets like trademark, patents and other rights are similar in nature are intangible assets, which in terms of section 32(1) (ii) of the Act would be a capital assets entitled to depreciation. In view of the order of the jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1320
Dishonor of Cheque - maintainability of the Criminal Revision Application on the ground that impugned order passed by the Magistrate would be interlocutory in nature - HELD THAT:- On consideration of the submissions, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the impugned order would be in the nature of interlocutory order. It is trite that the term interlocutory order is not defined under the Cr.P.C. However, it is now well settled that an interlocutory order is not converse of a final order. In other words, every order, which is not final, would not necessarily be interlocutory in nature. There may be certain orders, which although not final, may still not be interlocutory. In my considered view, the impugned order would fall in the said category. This is because any order, which substantially or materially, affects/decides the rights of the parties, in relation to the material controversy in question, cannot be said to be interlocutory.
The order, in which the witnesses are produced and examined, has to be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to Civil and Criminal Procedure respectively and in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. The impugned order can now be tested both on account of the proceedings being in the nature of civil proceedings and/or on the basis of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., under which the applications were purportedly filed by the respondent - thus, it can be seen that where a party himself wishes to appear as witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf is examined, unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. The impugned orders do not show any consideration in this regard.
The net result is that it is open for the learned Magistrate to lay down his own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Act. However, the Magistrate, depending upon facts and circumstances of the case, would be guided by principles akin to or underlying the relevant provisions under the Evidence Act and other enactments, governing procedural aspects.
The Revision Application is allowed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1319
Exemption under Section 10B - Exclusion of scrap sales from the total turnover - HELD THAT:- AO has taken the scrap sales as part of the total turnover. However, the same was not taken as an export turnover. This Tribunal has held that the total turnover and the export turnover shall be of the same figure. Therefore, once the scrap sales were not formed part of the total turnover, the same cannot form part of the export turnover also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1318
Disallowance u/s.36(1) (ii) being commission paid to the Managing Director of the assessee company - HELD THAT:- As decided in TRUE VALUE HOMES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [2013 (3) TMI 858 - ITAT CHENNAI] CIT(Appeals) concluded that section 36(1)(ii) is not applicable to the payment made by the assessee to its managing director. CIT(Appeals) further, relying on the decision of Gestener Duplicators(P) Ltd. [1978 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that the commission paid to Shri Ravichandran, the managing director of the assessee-company, is part of the salary. The only thing is that the commission has been paid on the basis of the turnover; but still the payment was in the nature of salary for services rendered by Shri Ravichandran.
CIT(Appeals) also held that there is no force in the argument of the AO that no marketing efforts are necessary to sell the flats constructed by the assessee, as the assessee-company enjoys a very famous brand-name. CIT(Appeals) concluded that this finding is without any basis. As observed that even famous companies having valuable brand-names have to incur huge expenditure for marketing and there is no reason to hold that the assessee would get business without any marketing efforts.
Disallowance made by the AO was not justified and accordingly deleted the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1317
Dishonor of Cheque - adducing the photostat copy of cheque as secondary evidence - the complainant did not establish the facts that the cheque sought to be marked is the photostat copy of the original cheque and that the original cheque was lost - Section 65 of the Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- Since the trial Court will not number the criminal case without production of original cheque at the time of filing the case, it can be presumed that original cheque must have been filed into Court. Further, as per the observation of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, it was not the contention of the accused before him that the original cheque was not filed at all into Court. So, by this count also it can be held that original cheque was indeed filed into Court. Then, at the time of withdrawing original cheque concerned Court staff will return the original cheque only on comparison of original with photostat copy. Therefore, the photostat copy now available in the Court can be presumed as exact copy of original cheque. Then loss of cheque is concerned, no doubt, except the affidavit of complainant he has not produced any supporting evidence or affidavit of his previous counsel. In the considered view of this Court, that is not the big lapse to reject his request.
As rightly argued by learned counsel for 2nd respondent/complainant the document sought to be produced is not brought forth all of a sudden, but is available in the Court itself. Therefore, the Courts below were right in permitting him to adduce the secondary evidence. Therefore, the contention of the accused that original cheque was not filed into Court and its loss was not proved cannot be appreciated.
The next contention of the petitioners/accused is that photostat copy of the cheque is easily tamperable by mechanical process and if the same is allowed to be marked as exhibit, accused may not be able to send the document for comparison to FSL to establish their defence plea - HELD THAT:- The burden is on the complainant to prove the contents of the cheque. It is only after the complainant discharges his evidentiary burden then the onus shifts to accused. The accused can establish their defence by various other means which are legally permissible to them. So, merely on the apprehension that the accused will loose the opportunity to send the document to FSL, the complainant cannot be restrained from establishing his case by producing the secondary evidence. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted.
There are no merits in the Criminal Petition - petition dismissed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1316
Valuation of motor cars - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case we find that the Assessing Officer had valued the motor cars as per Rule 14(2)(a)(i) of Schedule-III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. That the Schedule-III of the Wealth Tax Act provides the rules for the valuation of the assets. The Assessing Officer has valued the assets as per rules prescribed under the Act for the valuation of assets. In view of the above, we find no merit in ground No.1, 1.1 & 1.2 of the assessee’s appeal. The same are rejected.
Non-allowance of deduction for the debt owed by the assessee in respect of taxable assets - AO did not accept the assessee’s claim on the ground that the assessee has not been able to prove that the debt was Incurred in relation to the motor cars - HELD THAT:- The assessee has referred to the balance sheet of the assessee as on the valuation date from which it is evident that the share capital and reserves and surplus taken together is ₹ 45.88 crores while the accumulative loss was ₹ 85.73 crores. Therefore, all the assets of the assessee company have been acquired out of the loan funds only. When the assessee has no funds of its own, then, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the deduction under Section 2(m) to the assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1315
CENVAT Credit - shortages of raw material/finished goods found short at the time of investigation - HELD THAT:- At the time of visit, shortage of finished goods as well as raw material was found. Infact in the case of raw material, shortage is more than 20% and if method of weighment devised by the appellant is taken into consideration then the shortage is 20%. There may be variation from 5% to 10% or like percentage but cannot be such a huge variation in counting the stock on average basis. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel that weighment has been done on average basis is not acceptable. In these circumstances, for the shortage of raw material, appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat credit availed thereof.
Finished goods - HELD THAT:- The shortages worked out is less than 9% which may be due to average methods suggested by the appellant during the course of physical verification of the goods of 250 MT and as per Panchnama also, the weighment has been on the basis of average weight of bundle of each size. Therefore, variation may occur due to the weighment done on average basis.
Penalty on shortage of raw material - HELD THAT:- The penalty attributable to shortage of raw material is on high side as appellant has paid the duty at the time of investigation itself. Therefore, penalty is reduced to 25% of the duty confirmed on raw material found short.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1314
Classification of goods - terminal box - PSTB Arrangement Tri-furcating box - neutral terminal box and sealing box - classifiable under Heading 8501 or under Heading 8403 - HELD THAT:- Headings 8535 and 8536 covers “electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electric circuit or for making connections to or in electric circuits”. Heading 8537 covers “Board, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets, and other basis equipped with two or more apparatus of Heading 8535 or 8536 for electric control or distribution of electricity - the goods, in question, are used for providing support to the cables and segregation of the cables and also providing the space for filling the insulating material to avoid short circuits and that these items are meant for use with electric motors.
Since, there is no evidence produced to refute this contention, there is no merit in the Revenue’s appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1313
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - acquittal of the accused - existence of advance or not - HELD THAT:- The scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY PAL SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [2014 (12) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT], has after taking survey of its earlier decisions including in the case of BASAPPA VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA [2014 (2) TMI 1386 - SUPREME COURT] and Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, [2007 (2) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT], has held that unless the judgment of acquittal is based on, no material or is perverse or the view taken by the Court is wholly unreasonable or is not a plausible view or there is non consideration of any evidence or there is palpable misreading of evidence, the Appellate Court will not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.
The Income Tax Return is in respect of M/S Kamala Traders of which the Proprietor is shown as Smt. Radhika R. Pangam and the appellant. The Balance Sheet is signed by the Chartered Accountant and not by the appellant. It is true that in the matter of filing of Returns, the party takes the assistance of a Chartered Accountant/Expert. However, in the present case, the appellant could have examined the Chartered Accountant or atleast produced the accounts maintained, in order to establish that the amount of ₹ 75,000/- was advanced to the respondent No. 1. That evidence is not forthcoming. The appellant has not examined his wife, who is the Proprietor and in whose presence the amount is allegedly advanced. As noticed earlier from the evidence of the appellant, it does not appear that the appellant was having sufficient amount, so as to support the loan of ₹ 75,000/-, somewhere in June, 2008.
The submission on behalf of the appellant that adverse inference needs to be drawn as the respondent No. 1 had failed to subject himself for cross examination, also cannot be accepted. It is now well settled that the accused can rebut the presumption on the basis of the cross examination of the complainant and other witnesses if any, and it is not necessary that he should enter the witness box as a rule.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1312
Validity of proceedings pending - challenged on the ground that on account of inordinate delay in completing the trial his right of speedy trial as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed - whether the prosecution should be dropped against the applicant herein on the ground that his right to have a speedy trial as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been violated?
HELD THAT:- Since 2009, the health of the applicant has deteriorated to a considerable extent and as on today he is aged 70 years. Till this date, the trial Court has not been able to frame charge. The trial Court could have been directed to proceed further with the trial expeditiously and finish it of within a stipulated period of time, but it appears that despite many such orders being passed in the past in different matters the Courts have not be able to complete the trials. Nothing has been pointed out by the State that the delay has occurred on account of any delaying tactics adopted by the applicant herein.
In HUSSAINARA KHATOON VERSUS HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR PATNA [1979 (2) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Apex Court gave anxious consideration to the pathetic plight of under trial prisoners languishing in jail for years together and held that any procedure which would not ensure a speedy trial could not be regarded as reasonable, fair or just and that the right of an accused to speedy trial rather 'a reasonably expeditious trial' is imbibed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Right to life means right to live with full human dignity, without humuliation and deprivation or degradation of any sort. The impact of being an accused is evident from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, there can be no doubt that the tag of 'accused' would deprive a man the right to live with full human dignity. It is these facets and factors that fetched 'fair trial' the recognition as a human right. Speedy trial is an integral part of fair trial. Therefore, the right to speedy trial is also a human right and no civilized society can deny the same to an accused. Furthermore, it should always be the concern of the society to see that a real culprit is given the condign punishment at the earliest and also to see that an accused is given an early opportunity to clear the cloud of suspicion shrouded around him and to remove the tag of 'accused'. The said purpose in view that is founded on social interest could not be achieved if trial is unduly delayed as trial is the sole device to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused.
Thus, even if the entire case of the prosecution as accepted as true, no case of forgery is made out. The case on hand is one in which a school availed of monitory benefit in the form of salary/maintenance grant twice by placing a bill knowingly well that the amount earlier had already been disbursed. The monitory benefit was in favour of the school. Of course, the case of the prosecution is that the applicant herein and other coaccused had acted in collusion with the each other.
This is a case wherein the prosecution deserves to be dropped so far as the applicant is concerned, on the ground that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed - Application allowed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1311
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2013 (11) TMI 1599 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] While considering the claim u/s. 36(1)(iii) what is to be required to judge is whether the amount is borrowed for the purpose of business or not. Since the amount has been borrowed in earlier years as well as during the year at a stipulated rate of interest and which has been still utilized for the purpose of business, the interest rate could not have been re-negotiated for earlier year. Therefore, rate of interest, paid by the assessee is quite reasonable having regard to the fair market value of such services. Therefore, the CIT(A) was incorrect in restricting the interest payable to the extent of 15% or 14% which is supported by various decisions mentioned in the order in preceding paras. Since the interest rate paid by the assessee is reasonable, the order of the CIT(A) is reversed and addition is deleted. Thus, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed on this ground.
Disallowance u/s.14A - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2013 (11) TMI 1599 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of assessee by placing reliance on the order of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Chudgar Ranchodlal Jethalal [2015 (4) TMI 437 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] for the proposition that disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D though is mandatory from A.Y. 2008-09 under no circumstances, should exceed quantum of exempt income.
In view of above, Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D should not exceed quantum of exempt income. As far as disallowance of administrative expenses is concerned, in absence of details of investments made during the year, number of transactions in those investments etc, this issue needs to be re-looked by Assessing Officer. So, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to him with direction to decide in view of above discussion and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1310
Computation of deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- Regarding bank interest respectfully following the earlier decision of the Tribunal we hold that AO should grant netting benefit to the assessee as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd [2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT]
Disallowance of job work charges - We direct the AO to redo the assessment by considering only the net receipt in respect of job work. The expenditure in this respect has to be worked out on the basis of either man hours put in the job work in comparison to the own manufacturing activity or on the basis of output ratio in the own manufacturing activity and job work. The assessee is directed to produce relevant details for allocation of the expenditure regarding job work activity. If it is not possible to work out the allowable expenditure on the above said basis then the AO should work out on some reasonable basis.
Disallowance on account of exchange difference - we find that the assessee is having two kinds of loan one is short term loan against export bills which is clear from the schedule of the balance sheet and other is term loan. Even in the schedule 4, the assessee has shown secured loan in foreign currency which is term loan and further the working capital loan under the category of pecking credit, post shipment foreign currency account. As far as the working capital loan is concerned the exchange gain on such loan should be allowed as business income and so far as the exchange gain on secured term loan which is not for working capital the same cannot be treated as business income for the purpose of section 10A. Accordingly we direct the AO to verify the exact details of the foreign exchange gain in respect of two kinds of loan and then allow the claim of the assessee with respect to the working capital loan
TP Adjustment - addition being interest calculated @ 18% on credit period to AE beyond 180 days on certain export invoices - whether Under transfer pricing regulation, export outstanding is not a transaction with AE and hence no addition is to be made? - HELD THAT:- To some extent there is a force in the contention of Ld. AR that if the assessee has to make payment of imports to same party then, receiving delayed export realization cannot be said to be bearing interest as assessee is already owing much more amount to its AE on account of import payments. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we consider it just and proper to restore this issue to the file of AO to examine and verify the facts and if on the dates when the impugned interest is computed in respect of export realization, the assessee is already having obligation to pay to its AE the amount regarding import made by it then, to that extent interest cannot be added as TP adjustment. We therefore, restore this matter to the file of AO with a direction to re-adjudicate this issue as per directions given above. For statistical purposes this ground is treated to be allowed.
Applicability of MAT provisions - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 491 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein it has been held that a unit located in SEZ is covered buy sub-s.(6) of s. 115JB irrespective of the fact that such unit is claiming deduction under s. 10A and, therefore, the book profit of the SEZ unit could not be included while computing book profit under s. 115JB for assessment year 2008-09, despite the fact that clause (f) of Expln. 1 to s. 115JB(2) has been amended to apply the provisions of MAT to units which are entitled to deduction under section 10A.
Following the aforementioned decision similar view was also taken by G. Jewelcraft Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 980 - ITAT MUMBAI] It is seen that Ld. CIT(A) has followed aforementioned decision of Tribunal in the case of Genesis International (supra). Respectfully, following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench we decline to interfere in the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1309
Condonation of delay in filling appeal before the CIT(A) - Levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - failure of the assessee in furnishing the e-statements to the TDS Officer - substantial delay in furnishing the e-statements to the TDS Officers - reasons given by the assessee for the said delay includes lack of knowledge about the internet, lack of internet infrastructure, and amended provisions which are come into force by Finance (No.2) Act 2004, lack of man power in the Government offices etc - HELD THAT:- We find the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals before him despite the known and familiar problems troubling the citizens in general and the present assessee in particular. The problems are plenty that relates to infrastructure, man power, priority of duties of the staff. Further, we find that the assessee has duly deducted the tax and credited the same to the Government Account in time. It is also noticed this is the first default by the assessee in these matters. Considering the factual matrix specific to the assessee, we are of the opinion, that as the first time default, we should direct the Ld. CIT(A) condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the issue raised in the appeals are set aside t the file of the Ld. CIT(A). - Appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1308
Levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - where assessee deducted income tax paid to contractors and the TDS so collected deposited in the account of Central Government in time? - default of the assessee is the late filing of quarterly returns electronically and the same is due to ignorance of technical knowledge, lack of interest infrastructure support at Ghazipur - It is the prayer of the assessee this is the first time default and seeks lenient approach and delayed the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- On hearing, the Ld. DR for the revenue, we find that there is no dispute on the facts that it is the first time default and, otherwise the assessee is regular in furnishing the statements in the subsequent assessment years. This is known truth that there are infrastructural problems relating to Internet, man power etc. Electricity is not continuous available in the said locations.
We are of the opinion this is not a fit case levy of penalty in these two appeals. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee in all these appeals are allowed.
........
|
9911796707
