|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 664 Records
-
2006 (11) TMI 252
Issues involved:
The main issue in this case is the assessment of income from undisclosed sources u/s 158BC of the IT Act for the block assessment period from 1st April, 1990 to 17th Nov., 2000. The key contention raised is regarding the completion of the search and seizure operation on 17th Nov., 2000, and the subsequent passing of the assessment order on 30th Jan., 2003, which was beyond the prescribed time limit.
Details of the Judgment:
The assessee objected to the addition of Rs. 13,79,000 as income from undisclosed sources, emphasizing that the search concluded on 17th Nov., 2000, and the assessment order should have been passed by 30th Nov., 2002. The contention was that no seizure was made on 3rd Jan., 2001, and the Panchnama issued on that date was a release order, not a seizure. The limitation period for assessment could not be counted from the document dated 3rd Jan., 2001. The AO's letters dated 8th Nov., 2002, acknowledged that the assessment was getting time-barred by 30th Nov., 2002, supporting the assessee's claim.
The assessee cited relevant court decisions and High Court judgments to support their argument that a restraint order not amounting to seizure cannot be considered for calculating the period of limitation for assessment. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, stating that the search and seizure operation was completed on 17th Nov., 2000, requiring the assessment order to be passed by 30th Nov., 2002. The assessment made on 30th Jan., 2003, was deemed time-barred. The alleged restraint order dated 3rd Jan., 2001, was considered a release order, and the jewellery under restraint was released on that date.
The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contentions without valid reasons, as observed in para 3.2 of the impugned order. The AO's objection that the additional ground of limitation should not be considered since it was not raised during the assessment proceedings was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the objection regarding limitation could not have been raised during the assessment proceedings, and the assessment made by the AO was deemed out of time as prescribed under s. 158BE(1)(b), thus canceling the assessment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the objections raised by the assessee regarding the time-barred assessment order and ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the assessment made by the AO.
-
2006 (11) TMI 251
Issues involved: Disallowance of foreign travelling expenses u/s 11,69,850 incurred by two employees who are son and daughter-in-law of the assessee.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses by AO and confirmation by CIT(A):
The AO disallowed expenses of Rs. 11,69,850 related to foreign travelling of son and daughter-in-law of the assessee, stating it was not commercially dominated and purely a pleasure trip. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance citing lack of evidence for business purposes and non-utilization of foreign currency for business. The visit was deemed a pleasure trip, and expenses were not considered wholly and exclusively for business.
Issue 2: Assessee's contentions and evidence:
The assessee claimed the expenses were for business purposes to negotiate purchases of imported fabrics, explore markets, and reduce dependence on old suppliers. Detailed explanations were provided, including educational qualifications, language skills, and business justifications for the foreign tour. The assessee submitted evidence of purchases made from new suppliers after the visit, along with vouchers and certificates supporting the purpose of the trip.
Issue 3: Departmental Representative's arguments:
The Departmental Representative contended that the expenses were not for business purposes, emphasizing lack of justification for foreign currency utilization and educational qualifications of the daughter-in-law. The representative argued that the visit was more of a pleasure trip disguised as a business purpose, and bills and vouchers were not produced in a timely manner.
Judgment and Conclusion:
The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and evidence provided by both parties. It noted that the expenses were incurred for business purposes, supported by vouchers, purchases from new suppliers, and negotiations with foreign parties. The daughter-in-law's language skills and contributions to negotiations were acknowledged, and the expenses were deemed allowable. The disallowance of Rs. 11,69,850 was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 250
Issues:
1. Non-admission of appeals by CIT(A) treating them as non est due to late filing.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A) due to illness of the director.
3. Application of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in condoning the delay.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolved around the non-admission of appeals by the CIT(A) due to late filing, treating them as non est. The appeals were against the penalty order and the assessment order passed by the AO under the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) observed that the appeals were filed late, beyond the prescribed period of thirty days from the receipt of the orders appealed against. The assessee cited the illness of the director as the reason for the delay, supported by a medical certificate. However, the CIT(A) refused to admit the appeals, considering the circumstances and the timeline of events.
2. The second issue addressed the condonation of the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to the illness of the director. The assessee submitted a medical certificate and a letter requesting condonation of the delay, explaining that the director was ill and unable to file the appeals on time. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties, reviewed the medical certificate, and referred to a decision of the Gujarat High Court emphasizing a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure substantive rights are not defeated based on technicalities. The Tribunal found that the medical certificate provided sufficient cause for the delay and decided to condone the delay.
3. Lastly, the Tribunal applied the decision of the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure that cases are decided on merits rather than technical grounds. By adopting a liberal approach and considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeals, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restoring the matters for fresh consideration on merits, providing the assessee with reasonable opportunities to present their case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the importance of considering genuine reasons for delays in filing appeals, adopting a liberal approach to ensure substantive rights are upheld, and providing parties with opportunities to be heard and have their cases decided on merits rather than technicalities.
-
2006 (11) TMI 249
Denial to Grant registration u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) - Charitable Trust - Objects and activities not genuine - CIT was of the view, that since the amount of Rs. 500 which was the initial contribution of the founder of the trust was too small and illusory, the necessary ingredient of the trust property was missing and the objects of the trust cannot be achieved with this paltry amount - HELD THAT:- The objects of the trust as declared in the trust deed, which we have extracted, are all charitable objects and there is no finding recorded by the CIT to the contrary. Be that as it may, the real objection of the CIT seems to be that the initial contribution of Rs. 500 made by the founder of the trust and dedicated to the objects of the trust is hardly sufficient to carry out the charitable activities of the trust. The sufficiency or otherwise, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the assessee, is not a relevant factor while dealing with an application for registration u/s 12AA. The section in terms does not make it a consideration for the grant of registration.
The trustees have collected a sum of Rs. 5,71,927 towards contribution to the trust which has been deposited with the Punjab National Bank. The statement of account issued by the bank and which was placed before the CIT shows this figure as on 17th Sept., 2004. Therefore, there are sufficient funds available with the trust from which the charitable activities can be carried out. In our opinion, the CIT was not justified in refusing to grant registration to the assessee trust. The reasons given by him for such refusal are extraneous to s. 12AA. We may add that the CIT has not doubted the genuineness of the activities of the trust.
Thus, CIT, in our opinion, was not justified in relying on this decision for refusing registration to the trust.
Hence, we allow registration of the assessee trust, set aside the order passed by the CIT u/s 12AA and allow the appeal.
-
2006 (11) TMI 247
Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of the gifts received by the assessee.
2. Burden of proof regarding the nature and source of credits u/s 68 of the IT Act.
3. Role and responsibility of the AO in examining the donors.
Summary:
1. Genuineness of the Gifts:
The assessee, an individual deriving income under the head 'Salary' and from business, credited Rs. 11,00,000 in his capital account as gifts received from 10 different persons during the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000. The AO questioned the genuineness of these gifts, noting that the donors were not related to the assessee, there was no occasion for the gifts, and the donors had low income levels. The AO concluded that the gifts were not genuine and added the amount as income u/s 68 of the Act.
2. Burden of Proof:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including gift deeds, income-tax particulars, and affidavits from the donors. The CIT(A) held that the AO had rejected the assessee's plea without any material evidence. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) did not consider the various circumstances pointed out by the AO and relied on several judicial pronouncements to support their stance.
3. Role and Responsibility of the AO:
The Tribunal emphasized that the AO has the power to issue summons u/s 131 of the IT Act to examine the donors. The AO failed to utilize this power and instead relied on mere suspicion. The Tribunal referred to the decision in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., where it was held that without pursuing summons to examine creditors, the AO cannot draw adverse inferences. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's conclusions were based on surmises and not on concrete evidence.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO, stating that the AO did not fulfill his duty to examine the donors and relied on mere suspicion. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 246
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under GT Act, 1958.
2. Taxation of deemed gift contrary to facts and law.
3. Confirmation of levy of interest.
4. Merit of addition made on account of deemed gift.
Validity of Reopening of Assessment under GT Act, 1958:
The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the reopening of assessment under the GT Act, 1958. The District Valuation Officer determined the fair market value (FMV) of a plot owned by the assessee at a higher amount than declared by the assessee, resulting in the difference being treated as a deemed gift. The assessment was reopened, and the GTO brought the amount of deemed gift to tax. The Tribunal found that there was a valid reason to believe in the escapement of gift based on the DVO's report. The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the validity of the reopening.
Taxation of Deemed Gift Contrary to Facts and Law:
The appeal also contested the taxation of a sum as a deemed gift, arguing that it was contrary to facts and law. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the GTO on account of the deemed gift. However, the Tribunal noted that in a previous appeal by the assessee related to a similar addition under the IT Act, 1961, the CIT(A) had allowed the claim and deleted the addition. The Tribunal, citing a previous order, held that the determination of gift solely based on the DVO's report without considering inadequate consideration was unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue.
Confirmation of Levy of Interest:
The appeal raised concerns about the confirmation of the levy of interest by the CIT(A). However, the judgment did not provide detailed analysis or findings specific to this issue.
Merit of Addition Made on Account of Deemed Gift:
Regarding the merit of the addition made on account of the deemed gift, the Tribunal found that the addition was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish that a property was transferred without adequate consideration to deem it a gift. It was highlighted that the valuation by the DVO was not based on the provisions of the GT Act but on the land and building method. Since the higher valuation for computing capital gain had already been deleted in a previous appeal, the addition for the deemed gift was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed in part on this issue.
---
-
2006 (11) TMI 245
Exemption u/s 10B - income of Floppy Unit II - Export Oriented Undertaking - loss incurred - whether it is open to the assessee to opt out of the provisions of section 10B of the Act for anyone of the relevant assessment years falling within the block of five years by filing a declaration u/s 10B of the Act ? - HELD THAT:- In our view the Legislature purposely did not specify the year of furnishing the declaration so as to confer benefit to the assessee to opt out of section 10B of the Act in any of the assessment years falling within the block of five years. Thus, if the assessee seeks to opt out of section 10B of the Act, for a particular year, the assessee may do so by filing a declaration in that regard under sub-section (7) of the Act before the due date for furnishing return of income for that year. Thus the expression 'any' cannot be read as 'all' as in that case the exemption granted in the earlier year have to be withdrawn in case the assessee file the declaration under section 10(7) say in third year of the block period of five years.
We are inclined to hold that the requirement for filing the declaration as per the provisions of section 10B(7) of the Act is merely directory in nature and not mandatory. Thus, if such declaration is filed during the assessment proceedings it would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 10B(7) of the Act. It may be mentioned that similar view has been taken in case of Expo Packaging Ltd.[1994 (11) TMI 155 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C] It may also be mentioned that the reliance placed by the Ld. DR upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] is misplaced inasmuch as the said decision has been given in the different context inasmuch as the income of the export processing zone are assessable as per provisions of section 10A/10B of the Act, which is a code itself.
Thus, we are of the view that it is open to an assessee not to claim tax holiday benefit u/s 10A/10B of the Act for anyone year or more of the relevant block of five assessment years by filing declaration under sub-section (7) of that section before the due date of filing the return of income for the said assessment years. Since in the instant case the assessee has opted out of the provisions of section 10B of the Act by filing the declaration u/s 10(7) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings of the relevant assessment year, Revenue cannot thrust exemption provided u/s 10B of the Act upon the assessee.
Loss incurred - Since the sufficient material is not on record, this issue is set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer who may examine the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 244
Applicability of the provisions of s. 40A(2) - purchased the raw material from the two sister-concerns - converts the mild steel ingots into rolled products called the twisted deformed bars - notified as an industrially backward area for the purpose of s. 80-IA - Unaccounted investment - addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT:- We find that there is no justification to apply the average purchase rate, as the market rate of purchase keeps on fluctuating from time to time. The expression used in s. 40A(2) is 'any expenditure' which means that each expenditure has to be judged in relation to its market rate on the date of expenditure. Thus, it must be established before invoking s. 40A(2) that on the date the purchases were made, payments by the assessee were in excess of the fair market price of goods purchased by the assessee.
The claim of the assessee that sales by the said concerns to the parties other than assessee included sale of rejected ingots for which the rates were lower by more than Rs. 2,000 per metric ton has not been disputed/rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, price for such material has to be on lower side. The Revenue has not compared the price of raw material purchased by the assessee with the prices charged for the same material by other parties in the open market other than these two concerns. The legitimate needs of the business of the assessee to buy bulk purchase from these concerns has not been properly appreciated by the authorities. The rates fixed for the raw material between the assessee and these two concerns even if it were on a bit higher side, it would have satisfied the legitimate needs of the assessee in buying the raw material in bulk. It would appear that there is a marginal difference of Rs. 11 in payment made by the assessee and outside parties in the case of M/s MIL, as worked by the AO.
Besides, the provision of s. 40A(2) is meant to check evasion of tax through excessive or unreasonable payments to relatives and the associate concerns. However, in the instant case, it is seen that the assessee is entitled to claim deductions u/s 80-IA of the Act whereas the parties from whom the purchases have been made are subject to high taxes, therefore, to invoke the provision of s. 40A(2) in the case of assessee would not be just and proper.
Thus, we are of the view that the AO has failed to prove that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of goods or the legitimate needs of business of the assessee. Hence, we are of the view that the AO is not justified to invoke the provisions of s. 40A(2) of the Act in the case of the assessee. Hence, we direct to delete the same.
Unaccounted investment - addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT:- The fact that the consumption of electricity shown by the assessee was higher can give rise to a strong suspicion that the assessee might have suppressed its production and thereby might have understated its sales. But suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of positive material. It may be mentioned that the consumption of electricity by itself cannot form a reliable test for determining the production. Production depends upon various factors, namely quality of raw material, condition of machine, etc. Therefore, in view of decisions referred to above, the impugned addition made only on account of variation in consumption of electricity is not legally sustainable. Therefore the addition made on account of sale of undisclosed production and unaccounted investment for the undisclosed production are directed to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 243
Issues involved:
The judgment involves a common issue of reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO based on the difference in the cost of construction as determined by the Valuation Officer compared to the cost shown by the assessee for the years under consideration.
Summary:
Relevant Facts and AO's Action:
The assessee, engaged in construction business, had a shopping complex constructed. The Valuation Officer determined the construction cost higher than what the assessee had shown. The AO treated this difference as escapement of income and initiated reassessment proceedings under s. 148 of the IT Act for multiple years.
Assessee's Contentions before CIT(A):
The assessee argued that CPWD rates were wrongly applied instead of UP PWD rates for valuation. They claimed entitlement to deductions under s. 37 of the Act for business expenditure. The CIT(A) accepted these contentions and deleted the additions made by the AO.
CIT(A)'s Decision:
The CIT(A) found merit in the assessee's arguments and directed the AO to recompute the additions by allowing deductions at 28% from the valuation estimated by the DVO. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's claim for deductions under s. 37 and ordered consequential benefits.
Revenue's Appeal to Tribunal:
The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to recompute the additions as unexplained expenditure under s. 69C, contending that it was unexplained investment, not expenditure.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal considered a similar case and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing that the unexplained expenditure should be allowed as a deduction prior to the amendment to s. 69C. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no tax advantage to the assessee by reducing the construction cost.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal, based on precedent and legal interpretations, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deductions and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The relief granted to the assessee regarding the difference in construction cost was deemed justified, and the appeals were rejected.
-
2006 (11) TMI 242
Interest income on FDRs - income from other sources or income from business - Rejection of books of account - Method of accounting - Surplus funds - award of the arbitrators for damages for breach of contract - deduction of interest paid to bank against interest received on FDRs - Estimation of income - net profit rate to the contract receipts - trucks on hire - Whether the A.O is justified in applying 8% net profit rate - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the investment infixed deposits was made out of the surplus generated from the business and mainly out of the award of the arbitrators for damages for breach of contract. All the funds used for making the investments in FDRs were, therefore, surplus funds of the assessee. The assessee was free to utilize these funds in any manner. The assessee chose to invest these funds in fixed deposits. The fact that the fixed deposits were partly offered as security for the various facilities availed by the assessee from the banks would not make the income from the fixed deposits as business income.
We would like to add here that as per scheme of the Act, interest is, generally speaking, income from "other sources" unless the assessee is carrying on money-lending business or some very special circumstance exists to hold interest income to be business income, such as interest on delayed payments of sale consideration or other receipts like contract receipts. However, onus to prove so will be on the assessee. Interest income is separate and independent of contract receipts. Apart from that interest income, by no stretch of imagination can be considered as contract receipts for estimation of income by applying net profit rate to the contract receipts.
We, therefore, hold that the interest on FDRs with the bank continued to have their sources as the bank and the fixed deposits placed with it, and the fact that these FDRs were offered as security for financial facilities obtained by an assessee for the purpose of business would not change the character of the income as one from business. We are, however, faced with the fact that the Assessing Officer, in the order of assessment year 1997-98, has indirectly held interest income to be the business income. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also considered a major part of interest income to be the business income.
The learned Counsel had argued that the texture of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be altered at this stage. We tend to agree with him in this matter. We, however, hold that the interest income in assessment year 1997-98 also cannot form part of the contract receipts for estimation of income by applying net profit rate and have to be separately assessed.
Interest expenses against interest income received on FDRs - HELD THAT:- In view of our conclusions that the interest income on FDRs is income from other sources, we are of the view that the entire interest income should be brought to tax as income from other sources after allowing deduction of expenses u/s 57(iii) of the Act. It cannot be said that interest paid to the bank was incurred for the purpose of earning the interest income on FDRs. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. V.P. Gopinathan [2001 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] clearly supports the stand taken on behalf of the Revenue.
As observed, the funds in question were surplus funds, generated from the profits of business and the award money in the circumstances there is no expenses incurred by way of interest in earning the interest on FDRs. We, therefore, direct that the interest income in this assessment year be assessed as income from other sources.
As far as question of interest income in assessment year 1997-98 is concerned, the Assessing Officer will only examine the plea of the assessee that actual interest income that accrued to the assessee was only Rs. 35,34,762. Thus, this matter will require a fresh decision from the Assessing Officer after hearing the assessee.
Estimation of income - The books of the assessee suffered from a number of defects and sub-section (3) also provided that where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of accounts of the assessee, he may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. We have considered this matter. Sub-section (1) uses the word "shall", which means that from assessment year 1997-98, it is mandatory to compute the income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" in accordance with either cash or mercantile method of accounting. It is seen that from assessment year 1997-98, the assessee has not regularly followed any of these two methods. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of account. In view of the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer, therefore, had to proceed to make an assessment in the manner provided u/s 144 of the Act.
The amendment in section 145 was brought in because the hybrid method of accounting was used by the assessees to postpone the tax liability. In this connection, we are of the view that only like things can be compared and there can be no comparison between unlike things. It was also argued by the learned Counsel that the gross receipts have significantly increased in those years vis-à-vis earlier years. Such increase will necessarily have the effect of depressing the net profit rate. The learned Counsel did not furnish any empirical data to support his argument.
Having come to the conclusion that the assessment has to be made in the manner provided in section 144 of the Act, we may add that such assessment has to be reasonable and based on good faith and not arbitrary or capricious. It is the case of both the parties that past results, as assessed finally, form a reasonable basis for such an estimation, although other material on record can also be taken into account.
If past results showed loss or nominal net profit rate, then, the Assessing Officer will not be justified in applying 8 per cent rate. The claim of the assessee for allowing depreciation separately will also be examined by the Assessing Officer in the light of various judicial pronouncements referred to by the learned Counsel for the assessee. However, it is clarified that if in the past estimation of income had been done before allowing depreciation then the Assessing Officer will be justified in allowing depreciation in these years also and not otherwise, because only like things can be compared.
In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee are treated as partly allowed, for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (11) TMI 241
Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity of hearing and appreciation of specific contentions.
2. Computation of capital gains.
3. Acceptance of valuation report and additional evidence.
4. Determination of fair market value (FMV) of assets as on 1-4-1981.
5. Application of cost inflation index in reverse direction.
6. Re-computation of capital gains based on valuation report.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Opportunity of Hearing and Appreciation of Specific Contentions:
- Ground No. 1: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred by not providing a proper opportunity for a hearing and not appreciating specific contentions, resulting in a perverse and wrong finding. However, this ground was not pressed during the hearing and was subsequently rejected.
2. Computation of Capital Gains:
- Ground Nos. 2 to 4: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in computing the profit under the head 'capital gains.' The assessee argued that the computation was incorrect and contrary to the law, and the authorities should have accepted the capital loss or gain as returned by the appellant.
- Facts: The assessee declared long-term capital gain on the sale of diamonds, showing a net income from salary and interest. The AO found discrepancies in the valuation of diamonds and computed the capital gain at Rs. 16,86,204 by considering the fair market value of the raw diamonds as on 1-4-1981.
3. Acceptance of Valuation Report and Additional Evidence:
- The assessee submitted a valuation report of raw and uncut diamonds as on 1-4-1981 before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) did not accept this additional evidence, citing non-compliance with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
4. Determination of Fair Market Value (FMV) of Assets as on 1-4-1981:
- The core issue was whether the FMV of finished diamonds or raw diamonds as on 1-4-1981 should be considered. The assessee argued for the FMV of finished diamonds, while the revenue contended that the FMV of raw diamonds should be taken.
- Legal Provisions: Section 55(2)(b)(i) allows the assessee to opt for the FMV of the asset as on 1-4-1981 if acquired before that date. The Tribunal concluded that the FMV of the raw and uncut diamond as on 1-4-1981 should be considered, not the FMV of the finished diamond.
5. Application of Cost Inflation Index in Reverse Direction:
- The AO applied the cost inflation index in reverse to determine the FMV of the raw diamonds as on 1-4-1981. However, this method was disapproved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jogat Mohan Kapur, which held that applying the cost inflation index in reverse is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Re-computation of Capital Gains Based on Valuation Report:
- The Tribunal agreed with the revenue's suggestion to obtain a valuer's report for the raw and uncut diamonds as on 1-4-1981. The valuation report submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) should be considered. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the capital gains after considering the valuation report, allowing adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
Other Grounds:
- Ground Nos. 5, 6, and 7: These grounds were not pressed during the hearing and were subsequently rejected.
Conclusion:
- The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remanded to the AO for re-computation of capital gains based on the valuation report of raw and uncut diamonds as on 1-4-1981. The AO was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee during this process.
-
2006 (11) TMI 240
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer disallowing the expenses incurred in payment of the redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 45,000 paid towards fine and penalty respectively.
3. Whether the fine and penalty paid for infraction of law are deductible.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of CIT(A) in Confirming Disallowance of Redemption Fine:
The assessee, engaged in the jewellery business, was searched by Central Excise officials, revealing discrepancies in gold stock records. The Collector of Central Excise ordered the confiscation of 1494.350 grams of gold, offering redemption of 1379.5 grams on payment of Rs. 1,50,000 fine. The assessee's appeal to the Customs, Excise, and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal resulted in the confirmation of the fine and a reduction of the penalty from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 45,000. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of the fine and penalty, which was upheld by the CIT(A) after examining relevant case laws and statutory provisions, concluding that the fine was for infraction of law and not compensatory.
2. Entitlement to Deduction of Fine and Penalty:
The High Court of Kerala framed two questions regarding the deductibility of the fine and penalty. It directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the nature of the payment (compensatory or penal) with reference to the relevant statutes. Upon reassessment, the Assessing Officer concluded that the redemption fine was penal in nature, disallowing the deduction. The CIT(A) supported this view, referencing multiple case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros., which established that penalties for law infractions are not allowable deductions.
3. Deductibility of Fine and Penalty for Infraction of Law:
The CIT(A) and the Tribunal examined the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and relevant case laws to determine the nature of the redemption fine. The Gold (Control) Act's sections 71 and 73 indicate that confiscation and the option to pay a fine are penalties for contravening the Act's provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the fine was not compensatory but penal, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. that fines for law infractions are not deductible business expenses. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the disallowance of the fine and penalty as deductions.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the redemption fine and penalty paid by the assessee under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, were not deductible as they were penal in nature for the infraction of law. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 239
Issues Involved
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148.
2. Legality of deductions allowed under Sections 80HH and 80-I.
Detailed Analysis
Issue 1: Validity of Proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148
Assessment Years 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95:
The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148 on the grounds that excess deductions under Sections 80HH/80-I were allowed, which was not permissible by law. For the assessment year 1995-96, the notice was issued due to the redetermination of losses in earlier years to be set off against profits.
The CIT(A) canceled the reassessments under Section 147 on two grounds:
1. The reopening was bad in law.
2. The deductions were rightly allowed without setting off the loss from Unit No. 2 against Unit No. 1.
The Revenue argued that the reassessments were justified, citing Supreme Court judgments that deductions under Chapter VI-A should be allowed only after computing the gross total income. The CIT(A)'s reliance on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in CIT vs. Visakha Industries Ltd. was contested, as it was allegedly overturned by the Supreme Court in other cases.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening were provided to the assessee, and the reopening was justified based on the material on record. However, for the assessment year 1992-93, the notice under Section 148 was issued after four years, and the Tribunal held that the reopening was not valid as the assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment.
Assessment Year 1993-94:
The return was processed under Section 143(1), and no assessment was made under Section 143(3). The reopening was within four years, and the Tribunal held that there was no change of opinion as no assessment was made under Section 143(3).
Assessment Year 1994-95:
The assessment was made under Section 143(3), but the AO had not expressed any opinion on the provisions of Sections 80A and 80AB. The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid as the AO had committed an error of law by ignoring these provisions.
Assessment Year 1995-96:
The notice under Section 148 was issued to adjust the carried forward loss from earlier years, which was justified under Section 155(4).
Issue 2: Legality of Deductions under Sections 80HH and 80-I
The Tribunal held that the deductions under Sections 80HH and 80-I should be computed with reference to the profits of the eligible unit alone, without setting off the loss from another unit. This view was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd.
However, the Tribunal emphasized that the aggregate amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A cannot exceed the gross total income, as per Section 80A(2). This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in various cases, including IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT.
The Tribunal concluded that the AO was justified in restricting the deductions to the gross total income, and the excess deductions allowed earlier were erroneous.
Conclusion
- The appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 was dismissed as the reopening was not valid.
- The appeals for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96 were allowed, upholding the validity of the reassessments and restricting the deductions to the gross total income.
-
2006 (11) TMI 238
Issues:
1. Tax withholding demand under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 for non-deduction of tax at source from payment made towards purchase of land owned by non-residents based in the UK.
2. Appeal against the penalty levied under section 271C(1) of the Act for alleged failure to deduct tax at source.
Analysis:
1. The key issue in the first appeal (ITA No. 752/Mum/2009) was whether the assessee should be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201 and 201(1A) read with section 195 of the IT Act for not deducting tax at source from payment made towards purchasing land owned by non-residents based in the UK. The Assessing Officer (AO) held the assessee in default as no tax was deducted at source from the payment made to an Indian resident holding power of attorney for the non-resident co-owners of the land. The AO relied on the Supreme Court judgment and raised a tax liability of Rs. 4,41,680 along with interest. The CIT(A) upheld the demand, considering the payment as made to non-residents. However, the ITAT Chandigarh-A, after analyzing the legal position and facts, concluded that the payment made to the Indian resident was not covered under section 195 of the Act as the resident had the right to sell the land and was not merely an agent. Referring to relevant case laws, the ITAT quashed the tax withholding demand, providing relief to the assessee.
2. The second appeal (ITA No. 753/Mum/2009) focused on the penalty levied under section 271C(1) of the Act for the alleged failure to deduct tax at source from the payment made for land purchase. Since the ITAT had already ruled in the first appeal that the assessee was not in default under sections 201 and 201(1A) with respect to section 195, the cause of action for the penalty no longer existed. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal, leading to the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271C(1) of the Act.
In conclusion, both appeals were allowed by the ITAT Chandigarh-A, providing relief to the assessee by quashing the tax withholding demand and deleting the penalty levied under section 271C(1) of the IT Act in light of the legal interpretations and factual circumstances presented during the proceedings.
-
2006 (11) TMI 237
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147.
2. Legitimacy of the capital gain on the sale of diamond jewelry.
3. Legitimacy of the capital loss on the sale of gold jewelry.
4. Alleged bogus capital gain on the sale and purchase of shares.
5. Addition of Rs. 12,47,500 as income from undisclosed sources.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147:
The assessment was reopened based on the belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The AO's belief was based on information from the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council of India, suggesting that the cost of acquisition of diamond jewelry in 1982-83 was lower than declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the reopening, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO and Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which state that the AO should have a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the return had only been processed under Section 143(1) without scrutiny and that the AO had not expressed any opinion earlier as no regular assessment had been made.
2. Legitimacy of the Capital Gain on the Sale of Diamond Jewelry:
The AO questioned the cost of acquisition of diamond jewelry declared by the assessee, estimating it at Rs. 24,12,380 instead of Rs. 27,00,000. Consequently, the AO recalculated the long-term capital gain at Rs. 10,14,333 against Rs. 1,40,917 disclosed by the assessee. The CIT(A) accepted the cost of diamond jewelry at Rs. 27,00,000, referencing the VDIS disclosure, affidavit, valuation report by an approved valuer, and principles of valuation of the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. The Tribunal did not address this issue further as the Revenue did not raise a specific ground of appeal on this point.
3. Legitimacy of the Capital Loss on the Sale of Gold Jewelry:
The assessee declared a long-term capital loss of Rs. 12,99,983 on the sale of gold jewelry, which the AO did not disturb. This loss was set off against the recalculated long-term capital gain on diamond jewelry, resulting in a net long-term capital loss of Rs. 2,85,620 to be carried forward. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's declared capital loss, and the Tribunal did not find a specific ground of appeal from the Revenue on this point.
4. Alleged Bogus Capital Gain on the Sale and Purchase of Shares:
The AO added Rs. 12,47,500 as income from undisclosed sources, alleging that the sale of shares was bogus. The assessee had purchased shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. and sold them at significantly higher prices. The AO found discrepancies, including the lack of trading of these shares on the Ludhiana Stock Exchange after 17th July 1997 and the shares still being registered in the assessee's name. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, referencing the Tribunal's decision in a similar case involving a family member, Som Nath Maini, where the addition was restored. The Tribunal found that the AO's findings, including the structured transactions at Jaipur Stock Exchange and the non-transfer of shares, justified treating the sale as bogus.
5. Addition of Rs. 12,47,500 as Income from Undisclosed Sources:
The AO's addition of Rs. 12,47,500 was based on the finding that the sale of shares was not genuine. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, upholding the AO's findings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had conducted thorough enquiries, including examining the bank account of the broker, M/s S.K. Sharma & Co., and found cash deposits preceding the issue of cheques to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO's action was justified.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 and reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 12,47,500, concluding that the sale of shares was not genuine. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 236
Erroneous And Prejudicial Order - Validity Of Revision Order Passed by CIT u/s 263 - error in the calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC and income u/s 115JB - whether the order passed by the AO can be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - HELD THAT:- In our considered view, the foundation for assessment is the assessment order passed by the AO who is the quasi-judicial authority. The order of the AO is subject to appeal to the CIT(A). The order of the AO is also subject to the revision by the CIT u/s 263 as well as u/s 264. It is, therefore, necessary that the AO considers every fact for and against with due care and give his finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination and what is the evidence pro and contra in regard to each issue and the findings recorded on such evidence.
The order of the AO is silent on the issues raised by the CIT in his order u/s 263. It is only with reference to the questionnaires issued by the AO and the replies furnished by the assessee that it comes to light that the AO had made inquiry in regard to the issues raised by the CIT u/s 263. But, what is the decision of the AO much less what is the basis of such decision is not indicated in the assessment order. Such an order passed by the AO, in our considered view, would fall within the category of an erroneous order being a non-speaking order.
It is pertinent to mention that where the AO is enquiring about the facts and the assessee furnishes evidence, the AO may accept the evidence as sufficient in support of the claim. So, however, when a legal issue is involved and/or the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act is involved, it is imperative upon the AO to indicate the reasons for interpreting the provisions of the Act in a particular manner. In this case, the AO, as pointed out earlier, has not given reasons much less valid reasons for taking the view contrary to the view expressed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the AO is not only erroneous for accepting the explanation of the assessee but not basing the order on any reasons much less valid reasons in regard to legal issue involved.
It is also pertinent to mention that the power of the CIT u/s 263 can be exercised, as pointed out earlier, if twin conditions are satisfied. One of the conditions required for exercising the power u/s 263 is that the order of the AO is erroneous. In this case, the view taken by the AO is the view canvassed by the assessee. No reasons have been given by the AO for accepting the claim accepted in regard to interpretation of law.
Computation of deduction for the purpose of s. 115JA - The sub-section provides for reduction to the extent of the profits eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC computed under cl. (a), (b) or (c) of sub-s. (3) or sub-s. (3A). The words "in the manner" have been omitted from the language of above quoted sub-section. It is, therefore, evident that after the assessment what is to be reduced from the profits and gains of business as per the books of account is the amount of deduction u/s 80HHC computed under the relevant provisions of the Act. So, a plain reading of cl. (viii) gives the indication that the AO had wrongly accepted the claim of the assessee. The AO did not notice the distinction between s. 115J and s. 115JA. The AO has not given any reasons for accepting the claim of the assessee which was calculated in the manner as provided u/s 115J. No reasons have been assigned to hold that sub-cl. (viii) of s. 115JA was different from cl. (iii) of s. 115J. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the order of the AO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in regard to computation of deduction u/s 115JA also.
The CIT has also referred to certain other alleged mistakes such as wrong allowance of MAT credit, wrong claim of deduction u/s 80G, etc. The assessee has given explanations in regard to these issues and we are satisfied that there is no error committed by the AO in regard to small issues raised by the CIT. So, however, in regard to calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC and in regard to computation of profits for the purpose of s. 115JA, we are of the view that the order passed by the AO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT was accordingly justified in setting aside the assessment order and directing the AO to make assessment afresh in accordance with law.
Since the CIT has asked the AO to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, the law will take its own course in passing of the fresh order by the AO. The issues have got to be decided in accordance with law and assessee has the right to appeal against the order of the AO. The order of CIT is again subject to appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal, High Court, etc. We make it clear that our order will not prejudice the outcome of such proceedings. We have confined ourselves to the validity of order u/s 263 passed by the CIT. We, on the basis of material on record, are satisfied that the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 is within his powers and there is no infirmity in his order to the extent indicated above. We accordingly uphold his order for asst. yr. 2000-01.
As indicated earlier, our decision for asst. yr. 2000-01 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal for asst. yr. 2001-02 as well.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are dismissed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 235
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the proviso to Section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to non-residents.
2. Interpretation of the first and second provisos to Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Determination of the appropriate tax rate for long-term capital gains for non-residents.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 112:
The primary issue in this case is whether the proviso to Section 112, which allows for a lower tax rate of 10% on long-term capital gains, applies to non-residents whose gains are computed under the first proviso to Section 48. The assessee contended that the proviso to Section 112 should apply, arguing that the proviso applies to any long-term capital asset being listed securities or units, irrespective of whether the second proviso to Section 48 is applicable. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed, stating that the proviso to Section 112 is applicable only to cases where the second proviso to Section 48 is applicable, and since the assessee's gains were computed under the first proviso to Section 48, the lower tax rate of 10% did not apply.
2. Interpretation of the First and Second Provisos to Section 48:
The first proviso to Section 48 applies to non-residents and allows for the computation of capital gains in foreign currency, which is then reconverted into Indian currency. This method is designed to protect non-residents from the effects of currency fluctuation. The second proviso to Section 48, on the other hand, provides for indexation benefits to adjust for inflation, applicable to all assessees except non-residents who fall under the first proviso. The Tribunal noted that the two provisos are mutually exclusive, meaning that an assessee cannot choose between them; their applicability is determined by the nature of the asset and the status of the assessee.
3. Determination of the Appropriate Tax Rate:
The Tribunal upheld the AO's and CIT(A)'s view that the proviso to Section 112 does not apply to non-residents whose gains are computed under the first proviso to Section 48. The Tribunal reasoned that the legislature's intent was clear in restricting the benefit of the lower tax rate under the proviso to Section 112 to those cases where the second proviso to Section 48 is applicable. The Tribunal emphasized that if the legislature had intended to extend the benefit of the lower tax rate to non-residents under the first proviso to Section 48, it would have explicitly mentioned so in the proviso to Section 112. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate tax rate for the assessee's long-term capital gains is 20%, as stipulated under Section 112(1)(c).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming that the proviso to Section 112 does not apply to non-residents whose capital gains are computed under the first proviso to Section 48. Therefore, the long-term capital gains of the assessee are to be taxed at the rate of 20%.
-
2006 (11) TMI 234
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of interest u/s 234A.
2. Levy of interest u/s 234B.
Summary:
1. Levy of Interest u/s 234A:
The primary issue was whether interest u/s 234A is chargeable when the return of income is not furnished before the due date. The CIT(A) deleted the interest charged by the Assessing Officer, reasoning that in the case of a non-resident assessee, all sums chargeable to tax are liable to deduction of tax at source u/s 195. The Tribunal, however, held that interest u/s 234A is mandatory and arises on account of failure to file the return within the prescribed time. The Tribunal emphasized that section 234A refers to "tax deducted" and not "tax deductible." Therefore, interest u/s 234A is chargeable if there is a delay in filing the return of income, irrespective of whether the tax was deductible at source. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest chargeable u/s 234A based on the correct tax after giving effect to the Tribunal's order in the quantum appeal.
2. Levy of Interest u/s 234B:
The second issue was whether interest u/s 234B is chargeable when the income of the assessee is such on which tax is deductible at source. The CIT(A) deleted the interest charged by the Assessing Officer, following the decisions that interest u/s 234B is not chargeable in cases where tax is deductible at source u/s 195. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc., which held that no interest u/s 234B is chargeable if the entire income is subjected to tax deductible at source. The Tribunal concluded that the liability for payment of advance tax arises u/s 208, and the advance tax payable must be computed u/s 209, which stipulates that income-tax shall be reduced by the amount of income-tax deductible at source. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest levied u/s 234B.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed in part, with directions to the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest u/s 234A and delete the interest u/s 234B.
-
2006 (11) TMI 233
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of short-term capital gains on renouncing of right shares.
2. Cost of acquisition of the right to subscribe/renounce shares.
3. Market quotation and its relevance for computation.
4. Application of the Supreme Court's decisions in relevant cases.
5. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the appellant by the Assessing Officer.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessment of Short-Term Capital Gains:
The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 94,52,025 received by the assessee on renouncing the right shares of M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. should be assessed as short-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed this amount under the head "Capital gains," contending that the income was taxable. The assessee argued against this, citing that there was no cost of acquisition for the right shares, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty [1981] 128 ITR 294.
2. Cost of Acquisition of the Right to Subscribe/Renounce Shares:
The assessee claimed no cost was incurred in acquiring the right shares as the right was embedded in the purchase of old shares. The AO rejected this claim but considered the Supreme Court's decision in Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651, which allows for the diminution in the market price of shares to be adopted as the cost of the right shares. However, the AO found no diminution in market value based on the BSE's data, which showed no change in the share price before and after the rights issue.
3. Market Quotation and Its Relevance for Computation:
The BSE was closed from 11-6-1992 to 15-7-1992 due to a securities scam, and no market quotations were available for the relevant dates (28-6-1992 and 29-6-1992). The AO used the last available cum-right price (10-6-1992) and the first available ex-right price (16-7-1992), both being Rs. 250, to conclude no diminution in market value. The assessee contended that the market price on 29-6-1992 should be considered lower due to the rights issue, referencing historical market data post-reopening of the BSE.
4. Application of Supreme Court Decisions:
Both the AO and CIT(A) acknowledged the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia's case. However, they concluded that since there was no demonstrated diminution in market value, the entire sale consideration was taxable. The Tribunal, however, noted that the market price of shares generally diminishes after a rights issue and found it unreasonable to assume no diminution occurred. They estimated the ex-right value at Rs. 225 and cum-right value at Rs. 250, determining a diminution of Rs. 25 per share.
5. Adequacy of Opportunity Provided to the Appellant:
The assessee argued that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity to present further evidence, as the assessment order was passed on the same day as their request for additional time. The Tribunal found no serious contest on this ground and rejected it, emphasizing their focus on the substantive issue of market value diminution.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the short-term capital gains based on an estimated diminution of Rs. 25 per share, providing partial relief to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed, acknowledging the principle of diminution in share value post-rights issue and applying it to the facts of the case. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the need for logical and fair estimation in the absence of precise market data.
-
2006 (11) TMI 232
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest on refund of interest paid under section 234B.
2. Interpretation and applicability of section 244A.
3. Relevance of previous court decisions and their applicability to the current case.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Interest on Refund of Interest Paid under Section 234B:
The primary issue in this case was whether the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of interest paid under section 234B, which was subsequently found to be not chargeable. The CIT(A) allowed the interest on such refunds, citing the Supreme Court decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, which held that the assessee is entitled to interest on refunds, including interest paid under section 234B. The CIT(A) distinguished between the initial stage of proceedings under section 237 and the subsequent stage under section 240, emphasizing that "any amount" becoming due to the assessee includes interest.
2. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 244A:
Section 244A was the focal point for determining the entitlement to interest on refunds. The section provides that interest is payable on refunds arising from any amount due to the assessee under the Act. The Tribunal noted that clause (a) of section 244A(1) pertains to refunds out of tax collected at source or paid by way of advance tax, which was not applicable in this case. Clause (b) of section 244A(1) applies to other cases, including refunds out of self-assessment tax or other payments made pursuant to and after assessment. The Tribunal concluded that this clause covers refunds of interest paid under section 234B, as it is a neutral term encompassing every kind of refund, including interest.
3. Relevance of Previous Court Decisions and Their Applicability:
The Tribunal considered various previous court decisions, including those from the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, to determine their relevance to the current case. The Tribunal distinguished the current case from the decision in GSFC Ltd., where the refund was of the amount due and accrued to an assessee under section 244A from the Department as interest on refund of some other tax paid by it and not out of any payment by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the decisions in Ambat Echukutty Menon, Sardar Balwant Singh Gujral, and Needle Industries (P.) Ltd., which supported the view that interest on refunds should include interest paid under sections 139(8), 215, and 220(2). The Tribunal concluded that the expression "amount" in section 244A(1)(b) includes interest paid by the assessee, and thus, the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of interest paid under section 234B.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing interest on the refund of interest paid under section 234B, though for different reasons. The Tribunal emphasized that section 244A entitles the assessee to interest on refunds of any amount, including interest paid under section 234B, as it is a neutral term encompassing every kind of refund. The Tribunal distinguished the current case from previous decisions and concluded that the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of interest paid under section 234B. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
