|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 1180 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 722 - SC ORDER
Classification of Goods - Held that:- The product ‘Liril Active Shower Gel’ was covered by Heading 34.01 which covers soap and various other substances and the product was not covered by Heading 33.04 as contended by the Revenue - Assenting the view given by CESTAT - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 721 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption Notification No.8/2003 - Determination of Turnover – Clubbing of turnover of goods manufactured by loan licence or job worker - Waiver of Pre-deposit - manufacture of Ophthalmic and liquid orals (medicaments) - Difference of opinion.
Matter referred to larger bench with the issue, Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant have prima facie case in their favour warranting waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F?
-
2013 (8) TMI 720 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Application for restoration of Appeal – Held that:- No new facts has emerged after passing of the order dated 3.10.2012 by this Tribunal - Application for restoration of appeal is dismissed – Decided against the Assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 719 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit – GTA Service on Outward Transportation - upto the place of removal - Definition of Input Service - The appellant availed the Cenvat credit of Central Excise Duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on inputs services used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products - Whether the appellant were eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA Service availed for outward transportation of finished goods from the factory gate to the customer’s premises – Held that:- Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward freight up to the buyer’s premises would be admissible when the sales were on FOR destination satisfying the criteria prescribed for the same in the Board’s Circular 23-8-2007 - their sales were on FOR destination basis and it was the customer’s premises which would be the place of removal and since during the period of dispute, transportation up to the place of removal was covered by the definition of ‘inputs service’.
Ambuja Cement Limited v. Union of India [2009 (2) TMI 50 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - They would be entitled for the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA service availed for outward transportation of the finished goods up to the customer’s premises - the duty on the finished goods was at an ad valorem rate, the definition of ‘place of removal’ as given in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would be applicable and accordingly if the sales, of the goods take place at the customer’s premises i.e. the sales are on FOR destination basis, the customer’s premises would be the “place of removal” - the transportation of the finished goods upto customer’s premises would be covered by the definition of ‘input service’.
In the orders neither any findings had been given on the appellant’s plea that their sales were on FOR destination basis nor the Board’s Circular No. 97/6/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007 and the judgments of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Ambuja Cement Ltd. which was the jurisdictional High Court had been discussed - Order set aside - Matter Remanded back to CCE (Appeals) for de novo decision – Decided in favor of assesse.
-
2013 (8) TMI 718 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Rebate amount was availed fraudulently (as alleged) without any actual exports - MODVAT credit - Held that:- The Revenue had sought to deny the deemed modvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of the grey fabrics received by them on the ground that no manufacturing process had taken place at the appellant’s premises - If the said stand of the Revenue was accepted, it will lead to the fact that no duty payment on the final product was required - However it is seen that apart from using the said modvat credit for payment of duty, the appellants have also paid an amount from the PLA account - According to the appellant no prudent man will pay duty to the government without actually receiving the grey fabrics - The fact tilted the weight of the evidence in favour of the appellant - In any case by paying duty on the final product, the deemed credit so availed stands reversed by the appellant, in addition to payment of duty out of PLA.
SHREE SHIV VIJAY PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., SURAT [2010 (11) TMI 280 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Factually there was no direct evidence that the fraud was committed by the appellant herein - The case of the Revenue was that there was a complicity of the appellant in his failure to bring any material on record to establish genuineness of transactions - It was nowhere mentioned that the appellant had failed to file monthly returns to the authorities - The appellant herein must have filed the monthly returns as there was a payment of duty by cash through PLA which was evidenced from the findings of facts - If the appellant had filed the regular returns before the authorities - there was nothing on record to show that the appellant was directed to justify their claim of availment of deemed cenvat credit on the grey fabrics - order set aside – Decided in favor of Assesse.
-
2013 (8) TMI 717 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
100% EOU - Diversion of goods - Non- Utilization of Inputs - Violation of Various Notifications - Duty Liability - Revenue was of the view that the main appellant had not consumed/used the input imported by them as an EOU and had diverted the same and thereby has violated the condition of various notifications - Whether the Appellant was liable to discharge the duty liability foregone by the Department either in the form of Customs duty and Central Excise duty - Held that:- It had to be noted that the Revenue has conducted detailed investigations and the Director of the appellant, had clearly admitted that the vehicle numbers shown on the body of the invoices under which the clearances were shown just to fill the appropriate column and, in fact, no goods were physically sent - as many as 14 invoices were found to be having wrong vehicle numbers - what was required to be considered was the case against the appellant and each case had to stand on its own merit or fail.
Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Custom House, Chennai Versus CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, & M/s Gaur Impex [2009 (4) TMI 83 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - All the appellants had to do was to get a certificate from the Development Commissioner that the appellants had fulfilled the export obligation and if they had fulfilled the export obligation, the Development Commissioner would ha issued such a certificate - It was surprising that the appellants were choosing not to get a certificate from the Development Commissioner which was, indeed, required also for their own purpose and instead they required that the Commissioner should make a reference to Development Commissioner and go on, waiting for a reply.
Waiver of pre-deposit - The appellant had not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favor - Taking note of the fact that the period of dispute was 2001 to 2003 and nine years had already elapsed and the duty involved was more than Rs.2.5 Crores with equal amount of penalty - the appellant was required to make an additional small amount of pre-deposit - 35Lakhs were ordered to submitted – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal of appeal.
-
2013 (8) TMI 716 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Merchant exporter - Failure to export the goods - goods procured against CT1 certificate - appellant discharged the duty liability - Interest liability on Duty Liability - Whether the appellant was eligible for refund of amount paid by him as an interest on the duty liability on the goods which were cleared for export but could not be exported by merchant exporters - Held that:- Both the lower authorities had mis-interpreted the provisions of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, in a narrow sense inasmuch as they had held that the appellant herein had paid the duty under Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944, was liable to pay the interest also - the appellant was not a person who was chargeable to duty cannot be saddled with the duty liability under any provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Accordingly, the question of payment of interest by the appellant may not arise.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, VADODARA-II Versus M/s GUJARAT NARMADA FERTILIZERS CO LTD [2012 (4) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - The section would be applicable to the person who was chargeable with the duty - as had already been recorded that the appellant was not chargeable to duty’ as the goods were cleared for export under CT-3 for which B-1 bond had been executed by merchant exporters - Both the lower authorities had held against the appellant only on the ground that the appellant’s action of discharge of duty liability on the goods cleared for export but could not be exported, was covered under the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Order set aside - Decided in favor of Assesse.
-
2013 (8) TMI 715 - ITAT JODHPUR
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Ownership of income - Protective assessment - A.O. has concluded that the transaction in question related to purchase of beetel nut made by DTI [Dinesh Tobacco Industries] and not related to Shri Nand Kishore Malani in any manner - A.O. proposed to assess the income in the hands of DTI on the basis of DRI's finding - Held that:- Shri Nand Kishore Malani has made a surrender of the entire money and he has also paid taxes thereon and has also disclosed this income in his return of income. - There is no scope for making any addition either on substantive basis or on protective basis in the hands of the assessee firm or in the hands of M/s Dinesh Pouches Ltd. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) to that extent and order that this income has to be assessed in the hands of Shri Nand Kishore Malani, as individual. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of DEPB/ DDB - Held that:- when original assessment order was completed before the date of search and any deduction was allowed therein and as thereafter no incriminating evidence was found in the search relatable to this issue, the disallowance in respect of DEPB/ DDB cannot be made or for that matter disallowance can be reduced undertaken in proceedings u/s 153A of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of Delay - Delay in filing appeal by revenue - Held that:- Applications were allowed by condoning the delay of 722 days - Rule issued in each case was made absolute The affidavit - contents rendered reasonable explanation for such delay and gives reasons why appeal could not be presented within the prescribed time limit - It was pointed out that upon receipt of the judgment of the Tribunal, after obtaining opinion of the concerned officers, a decision was taken for filing the appeal - looking to the nature of delay explanation rendered by the appellant in various affidavits and the tax impact in the appeal the delay was condoned Commissioner of Income Tax V. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd [ 2010 (12) TMI 675 - Supreme Court of India ].
The applicant had attempted to explain the delay which can be attributed to the administrative reasons and particularly consumption of time at the office of the Government Pleader - The Court needed to take into account the interest of justice and particularly public interest and the question raised in the Tax Appeals was a substantive question of law and the stake involved in these Tax Appeals was also high, this additional aspect cannot be disregarded while condoning the delay - the Court needs to be alive to the realities when the matters were decided at every stage administratively and recognize the impersonal and slow moving machinery of the Government and needs to accordingly address the issue of condonation of delay put forth by the State - Giving importance to the substantive justice, rather than to the technicality, the Court shall have to mould its approach accordingly on having found sufficient cause in absence of any deliberate inaction.
-
2013 (8) TMI 713 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Cenvat credit on Rent-a-Cab Services - CENVAT credit on Outdoor Catering Services - The assesse was a business process outsourcing unit substantially exporting their output services - Revenue was of the view that they were not eligible for such credit in respect of many of the input services on which they had taken Cenvat credit - Held that:- Confirmation was not justified in the absence of any material to doubt the veracity of the facts affirmed by applicant - Commissioner had also concurred in principle that credit of tax paid on these services were eligible - But he had gone ahead to confirm the demand stating that no documents had been produced – Following STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III [2008 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT BANGLORE] and CCE, Nagpur Versus Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Revenue had no evidence to prove anything contrary to their claim and they had not taken any credit - They had no idea as to what type of documents would have convinced the adjudicating authority about the absence of a fact.
Waiver of Pre-deposit - No pre-deposit could be demanded - but on Credit availed on the basis of invoices raised by vendors said to be not registered court directed the pre-deposit – conditional Stay Granted.
-
2013 (8) TMI 712 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Nature of Service - Commercial Training or Coaching u/s 65 (105) (zzc) - non-profit institution - training programmes at the level of individual bank - The department was of the view that the service rendered by the assesse came under the category of ‘Commercial Training or Coaching' - Held that:- The activity undertaken by the assesse falls within the definition of ‘commercial coaching or training' as defined in Section 65(105)(zzc) - The services rendered by the assesse was exigible to service tax under ‘commercial coaching or training service - The assesses were providing to their students "training or coaching" for a consideration and would ipso facto fall within the ambit of "commercial training or coaching centre" envisaged in the explanation to Section 65(105)(zzc) - As this explanation had retrospective effect from 01/07/2003, the activities undertaken by all the assesses during the periods of dispute would get covered within the meaning of the phrase "training or coaching imparted for consideration" occurring in the text of the explanation - the explanation to Section 65(105)(zzc) of the Act had very wide scope to encompass the activities of the assesses and render them exigible to service tax under Section 65(105)(zzc) of the Act.
U.P.Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & others v. Dayal Ram Saroj & others [2006 (12) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT] - It was an inbuilt mechanism in the system itself - Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court was brought to the notice of the Bench, it was respected and is binding, subject of course to the right to take a different view or to doubt the correctness of the decision and the permissible course then often was to refer the question or the case to a larger Bench - This was the minimum discipline and decorum to be maintained by judicial fraternity.
Time-barred Demand - Whether the demand was hit by time-bar – Held that:- Service tax demand shall be restricted to the normal period of limitation inasmuch as the assesse was under the bonafide belief that they are not liable to service tax and evidences on record also support this fact - There cannot be any suppression of facts on the parts of the assesse and, therefore, the service tax demand had to be restricted to the normal period of limitation - the notice had been issued on 06/04/2009, only the demand for the period October, 2007 to September, 2008 would fall within the normal period of limitation and the demand of service tax had to be restricted to this period only.
Eligibility for Abatement - Held that:- The assesse was eligible for abatement towards the amounts levied for boarding and lodging expenses charged from the trainees subject to submissions of satisfactory evidences in this regard - on such evidences being furnished the service tax demand shall be re-computed and the assesse shall be liable to pay such recomputed service tax along interest.
-
2013 (8) TMI 711 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of service – The service provided by the assesse would fall under which of the category - Ship Management Services u/s 65(96), Maintenance and Repair Service u/s 65 (105) (zzg), Technical and Analysis Service u/s 65 (105) (zzh) , Business Auxiliary Service u/ s 65 (105) (zzb) and Business Support Service u/s 65 (105) (zzzq) - Assesses were engaged in transport of cargo throughout the world using ships owned/charted by them – Revenue was of the view that these remittances were made taxable - Held that:- Service provided was classifiable as Business Auxiliary Service and service tax liability would arise because this service also was specified in clause (iii) of Taxation of service (provided from India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 where liability was based on the place of residence of the recipient of service and not based on the place of performance of service – 1.3crores were ordered to be submitted as pre-deposit – on such submission rest of the duty to be waived – Decided against assesse.
-
2013 (8) TMI 710 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of Service - Travel by Air services u/s 65 (105) (zzzo) or Supply of Tangible Goods u/s 65 (105) – Waiver of pre-deposit - Assesse owned an aircraft which was being given on charter to other companies on payment of charter charges – they were paying service tax under the category of Transport of Passengers by Air u/s 65 (105) (zzzo) - Revenue was of the view that when an aircraft was given on charter to other companies, it amounts to supply of tangible goods a taxable service as defined u/s 65 (105) (zzzzj) - Held that:- The service was more appropriately classifiable as supply of tangible goods rather than as transportation of passengers by air – the aircraft was being charted out to companies who were paying the bills – relying upon Mesco Airlines Ltd. Vs. CST Delhi [2013 (3) TMI 522 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] – 12lakhs were ordered to be paid as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till final disposal – Decided partly in favor of assesse.
-
2013 (8) TMI 709 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Interim Relief – Extension of the Order – Stay Application – effect of proviso introduced into the provision by the Finance Act, 2013. - Held that:- The incapacity of the Tribunal to dispose of appeals (where an order of stay was granted) within a period of 180 days (earlier) or 365 days (as at present) was not attributable to any dilatory conduct of the assesses – Where the appeal could not be disposed of for no fault of the assesse or for reason not attributable to the assesse, provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act would not be applicable – following IPCL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA [2004 (6) TMI 52 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI].
Interpretation of Provision – Waiver of Pre-deposit - The interpretation placed by the Supreme Court in Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] on the 2nd proviso to Section 35C(2A) of 1944 Act was a fortiori applicable to the proviso introduced into the provision by the Finance Act, 2013 - Since the present appeal could not be disposed of within 365 days, for no fault of the assesse, and a prima facie case in favour the assesse was recorded by the earlier order- the assesse should be entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the assessed demand, during pendency of the appeal – Stay granted.
-
2013 (8) TMI 708 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Dispute between counsel (CA) and contents in the order sheet recorded by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal - Counsel disputed the contents of the order sheet - application is filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor, C. A. in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the assessee with a request to either recall or expunge the order sheet entry dated 08/02/2013 - Passing of order by the Tribunal despite adjournment sought by the counsel - order was passed not in the open court - manner in which appeal are listed for hearing and adjournment of the same - Conduct of the professional before Tribunal appearing on behalf of assessee
Held that:- No professional has any right to invoke the judicial machinery for his own interest without any reasons. If he does so it would amount to professional misconduct on the part of the professional. Moreover, to dispute the proceedings of the court, without any cogent material, is also an attempt to scandalize the court and also to create hindrance in the proper judicial functioning of the court which cannot be permitted under any circumstances. If it is allowed to be done, the judicial system will collapse. There is hierarchy in the judicial system. If someone is aggrieved with the judicial order passed by any judicial forum, he may approach the higher forum against that order and get the redressal of his grievance but he has no right to make an attempt to scandalize the court by moving such a frivolous application.
Not able to understand, what benefit Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor will get by moving such type of application as this application has been filed by him in his individual capacity and without the consent of the assessee. It is unheard in the judicial system that some professional can appear before the judicial forum under protest and argue his case. It is for the professional to take a decision in this regard whether he wants to appear before a particular court or judicial forum or not.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor has no right to argue any case under protest even if his contention is accepted. It is for him to take a decision whether he wants to appear before a particular court or not but the court is not obliged to adjourn the hearing only for the reason that he does not want to appear before it.
During the course of hearing of appeal on 08/02/2013, Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor has not shown any resentment or reservation with the Bench in arguing his case. He happily made the statement that he has no reservation with the Bench and he is ready to argue the case as per instructions from his client. Accordingly, the appeal was heard. Now after the disposal of appeal or even after 48 days from the disputed date of hearing the present application is moved disputing the facts recorded in the order sheet dated 08/02/2013 without any corroborative evidence.
Application dismissed with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be recovered as arrear of income tax from Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor, C. A. as this application was filed in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the assessee.
Issue referred the President of Institute of Chartered Accountants with a request to take necessary action as per law against Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor for his professional misconduct and also to take corrective measures and necessary steps to educate its members to behave with the judicial authorities befitting to their status and should not be engaged in scandalizing the judicial authority/courts.
-
2013 (8) TMI 707 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Waiver of interest u/s 215 of the Income Tax Act – Up to 12.01.1987, and, in fact, up to 09.06.1987 the assessing officer did nothing. It is only on 09.06.1987 which is much beyond one year after 13.01.1986 that the assessing officer issued the notice under section 143(2) of the said Act. Therefore, within the period of one year with effect from 13.01.1986, no delay could be attributable to the petitioner - Held that:- Relying upon the principle of law laid down in J.K. Synthetics Ltd v. CIT [2003 (10) TMI 34 - DELHI High Court], it is held if delay is not attributable to the assessee, interest can not be charged on them.
In the facts of the present case we find that after the issuance of the notice under section 143(2) the assessment has been completed within a little over eight months. Therefore, had the assessing officer been diligent enough and issued the notice under section 143(2) immediately or shortly after 13.01.1986, when the petitioner filed the first revised return, the assessment could have been completed by 12.01.1987 i.e., within one year. It is obvious that under the provisions, the assessing officer is granted a normal period of one year to complete the assessment and, if he does so, there can be no waiver of interest during that period.
However, if the assessing officer is not diligent enough and does not complete the assessment within the said period of one year, any interest liability for the period beyond that one year cannot be foisted on the assessee unless the delay in not completing the assessment within the period of one year is clearly attributable to the assessee.
In the present case, the period of one year which is available to the assessing officer for completing the assessment ended on 12.01.1987. For the delay beyond that date, there has to be waiver of interest unless part of that delay is attributable to the assessee. Here, the delay from 18.01.1988 to 18.02.1988 is clearly attributable to the assessee as it chose to file the second revised return on 18.01.1988. - There shall be waiver of interest under section 215 of the said Act in favour of the petitioner for the period 12.01.1987 to 18.01.1988. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 706 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rejection of books of accounts - question of law - Held that:- When questions of law framed by the assessee are mapped on the canvass of facts and circumstances of this case, it turns out to be clearly a case which has no legal implications to be resolved and rather is entirely dependent upon fact situations which have adequately been dealt with by the statutory authorities within the sweep and domain of their jurisdiction.
When the questions proposed by the appellant have neither legal contours nor have any legal aspect to be discussed, debated or decided or legal complications to be resolved, these questions framed in this appeal, cannot be termed as questions of law much less substantial questions of law. When Assessing Officer had rejected books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Act and this finding of fact has been affirmed consecutively by the two statutory appellate authorities which had then proceeded to deal with the entries in such books of accounts under different heads and had rendered their verdicts which have no potential for exposition of any legal theory or concept, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 705 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Prima facie adjustments - Scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Act - Prima facie adjustment made by the AO in respect of various deductions/exemptions/claims made in the return in Income - Held that:- The scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Act is by now well settled. The assessing officer can make prima facie adjustments only in respect of issues which are not debatable and for which no further information required from the assessee other than that contained in the return of income and the accompanying documents. In other words where the claim admits of more than one interpretation or requires further facts and details, the same is outside the scope of the said section.
Power of Commissioner (A) to call for additional evidence under section 143(1)(a) - Ld. CIT (A) call for additional details and also to set aside the claimed deduction to the AO for further verification in a case u/s 143 (I) (a) – Held that:- While adjudicating an appeal against intimation under sec.143(1)(a) of the Act the CIT(A) is not empowered to call for further details at the appellate stage. The CIT(A) is required to see whether on the basis of the return or, the accompanying documents as filed before the assessing officer, any prima facie adjustment could be made. It is further not open to the CIT(A) to remit set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) may either delete or sustain the prima facie adjustment - Decided against the Revenue.
Also, reliance is placed upon the case Khatau Junkar Ltd Vs. K.S. Pathania [1992 (2) TMI 67 - BOMBAY High Court ], wherein it was observed that in the absence of any specific provision in the Income Tax Act which disallows a deduction because a specific document specified in that section is not annexed to the return, the Income-tax Officer cannot, under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 143(1)(a), disallow a claim or a deduction because, in his view, adequate evidence in support of such a claim or deduction is not before him. He can disallow a claim for deduction only if he is satisfied, on the basis of the material which is before him, that the assessee is not entitled to such a deduction - Use of the phrases "prima facie admissible" in clause (ii) to the proviso and "prima facie inadmissible" in clause (iii) to the proviso also lend support to this interpretation. In its literal sense, "prima facie" means on the face of it. Hence, on the face of the return and the documents and accounts accompanying it, the deduction claimed must be inadmissible. Only then, can it be disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1)(a). In any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Income-tax Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143.
-
2013 (8) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Undisclosed income - Undervaluation registration of property - Whether the amount deposited in bank is part of sales consideration or undisclosed income liable to addition u/s 68 - Assessee himself made complaint about it - A.O. applied proceedings u/s 68 - Held that:- assessee as an honest citizen not only made a complaint to the registering authority that the sale deed has been registered at a value much below the amount, which he has actually received, he deposited the entire amount in the bank and voluntarily filed return. There was no material whatsoever or any circumstance, which could have suggested that this amount was received by him from any other source. The deposition of witness of the sale deed, the Bank Manager and the evidence filed with regard to valuation of the property was more than sufficient to discharge the burden, which the A.O. had unreasonably placed on the assessee. The A.O. in disbelieving the evidence has not given any reasons whatsoever to discard the statement of the witnesses, deposit of the entire sale consideration in bank and the deposition of the Bank Manager. The assessee had not only deposited the entire amount in the bank but also informed the registering authority of the deficiency of the stamp in the sale deed - from the facts and circumstances on the record that in the present case the Income Tax Officer did not act in bonafide manner. The assessee led substantial evidence to establish that the amount treated to be undisclosed income by the A.O. was the sale consideration of sale of his agricultural land, which he had deposited in the bank and had voluntarily filed return disclosing his income. Overwhelming evidence led by him was discarded without giving any reasons at all. The assessment was framed only on the ipse dixit of the A.O., which gives us reason to believe that he had exceeded his authority with some ill will or with ulterior motive - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Capital gain - Scope of block assessment proceedings - Additions due to cross references of entries in the books of account - Transfer of membership of recognized stock exchange - CIT upheld disallowance - Tribunal deleted disallowance - Held that:- Chapter XIV-B deals with the procedure for making assessment in cases of search. This block assessment is distinct and separate and independent of a regular assessment for the reason that in these block assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is concerned only with undisclosed income and he has no power to consider material and evidence not detected as a result of some external information or a survey or some other source other than a search, it is found that some income had escaped assessment, then it is open for the Assessing Officer to resort to a regular assessment including re-opening a completed assessment but he cannot drag these items into the block assessment proceedings envisaged under Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
Thus, a block assessment proceeding is distinct and different from the regular assessment proceeding and the Chapter deals exclusively with block assessment relating to search and all other proceedings are alien to it.
Whether the cross-reference in the balance sheet of the assessee and M/s Aasheesh Securities Ltd., could be treated as material on the basis of which enquiries could be made and the assessee to be reassessed on the source of income for charging income to the capital gain - Held no - decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
............
|
