|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 641 Records
-
2015 (3) TMI 1422
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Section 68 stipulates that any unexplained sum found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, then the same may be taxed as income of the assessee for that previous year. Section 68 can only be invoked if the loan has been taken or the sums have been credited in the books in the relevant previous year for which assessment is being made and not the loans taken in the earlier years.
From the income tax records, it is evident that this loan is coming forward from last several years and is reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee filed for the earlier years along with the return of income. All these records are available with the assessing officer. The mistake apparent from record does not mean the assessment order itself but the records which are available with the assessing officer.
Though the assessee could not furnish the confirmation of the loan and other evidences but such a loan could not have been added in the A.Y. 2005-06 as the same was taken in the earlier years and is being carried forward. In this year it is appearing balance of the current year. Legally such an addition could not sustained in this year and therefore addition made by AO u/s 68 is a legal mistake, which can be rectified within the ambit and provisions of section 154. The grounds raised by the assessee is treated as allowed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1421
Substantial question of law - disallowance of interest as proposed by AO u/s 36(1)(iii) - as stated all the questions of law have not been answered by any judgment of this Court - HELD THAT:- We have perused the questions of law in Income Tax Appeal [2015 (12) TMI 1881 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] In the case of same assessee, on similar question Nos.1 & 2, the Tribunal found that loans and advances given by the assessee company to its subsidiary company was raised for the assessment year 1989- 90 and it was decided in favour of the assessee. In the present case, we are concerned with the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03. The Tribunal has consistently applied the ratio of its decision rendered for assessment years 1989-90 and assessment year 1997-98 [2013 (2) TMI 601 - ITAT MUMBAI]. We do not find that there is any change in the factual position. The revenue may have preferred an appeal in this Court against the Tribunal's order for those assessment years, but no record of any appeal having been admitted on the questions of law proposed in the present appeal has been produced before us.
As we admit these appeals on the following substantial question of law:-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Iaw, the ITAT was correct in allowing deduction under section 80HHC with regard to meals supplied to foreign air lines ? ”
-
2015 (3) TMI 1420
Disallowance u/s 54F - Partial addition on the alleged ground that the appellant has invested the part of the capital gain towards the construction of residential house of which the land is owned by her spouse - HELD THAT:- As purpose of section 54F is that new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in her own name. In the present case, the assessee has constructed a house on a plot owned by her husband and therefore, entire investment having come out of sale proceeds of the plot sold by the assessee and not from anywhere else. The assessee’s case is covered by the decision in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which has been dealt in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (supra) and decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT vs.Gurnam Singh [2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]
In view of the above discussion, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not allowing the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee. Thus, the sole ground taken by the assessee is allowed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1419
Exemption u/s. 11 - charitable activity u/s 2(15) - Whether CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow benefit of exemption u/s. 11 to the assessee when the activities of assessee are akin to those of a mutual association and do not fall within the definition of “charitable purpose” as per section 2(15)? - HELD THAT:- As held that the assessee is a charitable institution and duly recognized u/s. 12A therefore, the income has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Act. Respectfully following the earlier years order [2014 (11) TMI 379 - ITAT MUMBAI] we direct the AO to compute the total income of the assessee in terms of Sec. 11 to 13 of the Act. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
Set off and carry forward of deficit of earlier years - We find that this issue was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking [2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in Se. 11 of the Act and that such adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the Trust u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act. Our view is also supported by the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal [1993 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1418
Nature of expenses - Service charges/ Technical advisory and management fee - services availed from M/s. United Breweries Ltd. etc are technical knowhow etc in its nature, where the benefits are enduring in nature and hence constitutes capital expenditure - AO treated these expenses as capital expenditure and disallowed from the revenue expenditure and allowed depreciation @ 25% as applicable to intangible assets - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has considered the issue in appeal [2013 (2) TMI 716 - ITAT CHENNAI] for the assessment year 2008-09 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
Depreciation on intangible assets - HELD THAT:- The present assessment years under consideration i.e. assessment years 2003-04 and 2010-11since the facts are identical and the issue is recurring one, the ld. CIT(A), by following the above decisions of the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim of the assessee for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2010-11. CIT(A), while deciding the issue has considered the entire issue of depreciation and also extracted the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09 [2013 (2) TMI 716 - ITAT CHENNAI]
Allowability of sales promotion expenses - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after considering the entire facts of the case, came to the conclusion that there is possibility of unreasonableness and excessive claim and disallowed 7.5% of total sales promotional expenses of Rs. 14,03,35,927/- and allowed only Rs. 12,39,29,825/- [ Rs. 13,44,55,019 – Rs. 1,05,25,194]. We find that the order passed by the CIT(A) is just fair and reasonable by considering all relevant materials and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Possibility of excess claim to the extent of 7.5% in sales promotion expenses claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- During the hearing of the appeal assessee has not able to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) towards the disallowance except stating that the entire claim of the assessee ought to have been allowed by the ld. CIT(A). We find that, after examining all the details filed by the assessee, CIT(A) came to a reasonable conclusion that the claim of the assessee is excessive to the extent of 7.5%. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1415
Disallowance retention money as well as on licence fee - case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 was framed - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As decided in NARAN LALA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE D.C.I.T., NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI AND VICE-VERSA [2011 (6) TMI 1019 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] complete facts of the case were not examined and verified including the amount if any incurred by the assessee for business purpose out of the retention amount.
After passing of the impugned orders, there is a change on the matter in issue and the points have now been decided in favour of the assessee which is also not disputed by the learned DR. However, the authorities below have no occasion to examine the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Both the parties agreed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the AO for reconsideration of the issue in the light of the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court [2009 (11) TMI 995 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and the Hon'ble Supreme Court (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT). We find force in the submissions of both the parties that the matter requires reconsideration in the light of the above decisions.
Thus the issue is restored back to the file of AO to decide the same - Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1413
Assessment in respect of the company which was amalgamated u/s 391/394 of the Companies Act - Assessment in name of the transferor or amalgamating company - corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation - Curable defect u/s 292B - HELD THAT:- Revenue was informed that the original assessee (i.e. the transferor under the scheme of amalgamation) had been dissolved pursuant to the amalgamation scheme and approved by the Court and that consequently the return for AY 2009-2010 had not been filed by the original assessee. A reply to the Revenue’s questionnaire was given by the assessee on 12th November, 2010, again bringing to the notice of the authorities that the scheme of amalgamation had dissolved the original assessee in whose shoes the transferee company had completely stepped in.
Despite this, the AO finalized the assessment u/s 153C, in respect of the original assessee. In appeal it was successfully contended on behalf of the assessee – which was represented by the transferee that the assessment under Section 153C was invalid since it was completed in respect of a non-existent entity. This order was appealed against by the Revenue unsuccessfully; the ITAT rejected its appeal.
We notice that the ITAT followed the ruling of this Court in M/s. Spice Entertainment Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT] subsequently followed in other rulings (refer to Additional Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Micra India Pvt. Ltd [2015 (5) TMI 613 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - No substantial question of law arises.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1411
Deduction u/s 80P - CIT(A) treating the receipts on account of interest from employees, interest on savings, dividend and income from no dues certificates as income from banking business activities and consequent allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) & 80P(2)(d) - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the assessment order that the assessee had income from interest from the employees, interest on savings, dividend and income from no dues certificate which has been held by the AO as Income from other sources.
CIT(A) had dealt with each items in his order and had given detailed findings on all the issues raised before him. After considering various judgements as mentioned above he treated the income as Income from business or profession and also entitled the assessee for deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act i.e. interest from employees, interest on savings, dividend and Income from no dues certificate.
DR has not controverted the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). The judgements relied on by the ld. DR in the cases of Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.[2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] is on surplus fund deposited with bank and interest income. CIT vs. Nawanshahar Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 3 [2012 (9) TMI 404 - SC ORDER] are squarely applicable in this case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction on underwriting commission and interest on PSEP Bond. Thus in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1408
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 14A r.w.rr. 8D - HELD THAT:- Once the assessee did not press the issue of initiation of re-assessment proceedings before the Tribunal and allowed the decision to be taken on all issues on merits, we now cannot unsettle the earlier tribunal order by entertaining any ground about the initiation of re-assessment. AR fairly admitted that the order of the tribunal in the first round has been accepted by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we cannot permit the assessee to raise the ground against the initiation of reassessment once again, after having not pressed the same in the first round before the tribunal. This ground is, therefore, not allowed.
Disallowance u/s 14A - AO was not correct in applying the provisions of Rule 8D for computing disallowance u/s 14A. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Maxopp Investments Ltd. [2011 (11) TMI 267 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that the provisions of Rule 8D can apply only from the assessment year 2008-09 and in the earlier periods, the disallowance is required to be made on a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment.
For interest aspect it is vivid from the assessee’s balance sheet that total investments at the end of the year stand at ₹ 167.74 crore. The assessee’s capital along with reserve and surpluses stand at ₹ 448.33 crore. This shows that the assessee’s Shareholders’ funds is far in excess of the investment made in securities yielding exempt income - in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that if there are interest free funds available with the assessee sufficient to meet its investment and, at the same time, loan has been raised, it can be presumed that the investments were from interest free funds and, resultantly, no disallowance of interest can be made.
Recently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that no disallowance of interest can be made u/s 14A if the assessee’s own capital is more than the investments fetching exempt income. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. . [2013 (7) TMI 697 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In view of the above judgments, it is patent that the disallowance u/s 14A on account of interest was not rightly made by the AO.
Disallowance towards expenses incurred for earning exempt income - we find that the AO made addition by applying the mandate of Rule 8D(2) (iii). On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) bifurcated total expenses into those exclusively relating to the manufacturing activity and those which are common to both manufacturing activity and exempt income. Such amount of common expenses was determined by the ld. CIT(A) at ₹ 80.23 crore. The ld. DR could not point out any deficiency in computing the base amount of expenses at ₹ 80.23 crore.
Apportionment of expenses - CIT(A) was not justified in allocating ₹ 26.21 lac towards exempt income by apportioning such total expenditure of ₹ 80.23 crore in the ratio of dividend income to the total turnover of the company. There can be no comparison between dividend income on the one hand and total turnover on the other, which contains only a part as income. On the contrary, a valid base for apportionment is exempt income to taxable income.
As in the case of HT Media Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 708 - ITAT DELHI] has also approved the apportionment of common expenses in the ratio of exempt income to total income. To this extent, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the AO. We direct the AO to compute disallowance u/s 14A by apportioning total expenses of ₹ 80.23 crore in the ratio of exempt income to total income. However, it is made clear that the total disallowance should not exceed 10% of the exempt income, being the amount of disallowance sustained in the first appeal in the original round, against which the Revenue did not choose to prefer any appeal. - Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes a
-
2015 (3) TMI 1406
Condonation of delay - sufficient cause of delay - delay around 8 ½ years - CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay around 8 ½ years in filing these appeals against the order passed by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- The assessee has to establish that there was no negligence or inaction and the right granted under law to challenge the order was not abandoned. It cannot be overlooked that on expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for seeking remedy, a corresponding right accrues in favour of the other party and the same should not be lightly interfered with. Coming to the facts of the present case, the assessee has to explain the period of delay by bringing the material on record to support the sufficient cause.
The assessee has to show that the assessee is vigilant during this period and the delay was beyond his control. Condoning of inordinate delay of around 8 ½ years should not frustrate the legitimate expectation of the other party as the Revenue would have come to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer has been accepted by the assessee and reached finality especially the assessee should not take up the requisite legal remedies for such an inordinate length of time of 8 ½ years.
Considering the findings of the CIT(Appeals), since he has not examined actual circumstances which has prevented the assessee to file appeals against the orders of the Assessing Officer, we are not in a position to express any opinion about condoning of the delay. The ld. CIT (Appeals), who is required to examine whether the facts narrated by the assessee in his petition for condonation of delay as true or not which he failed to examine the same. Thus, in our opinion he is required to examine the contents, details in petition whether it is true or not. In our opinion, rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties - The length of delay is not a material to condone the delay, the cause of delay is to be considered to condone the delay.
We are inclined to hold that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has to have necessary enquiry regarding averments made by the assessee in his affidavit and thereafter decide in accordance with law. - Appeal filled by assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1401
Excess cash as generated from unaccounted sales - No explanation to difference in cash either during the survey proceeding or in course of assessment proceeding - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute to the fact that on physical verification excess cash was found at the time of survey. AO has treated excess cash as unexplained income of assessee by alleging assessee failed to explain the source of excess cash. However, it is the contention of assessee before ld. CIT(A) as well as before us that excess cash found at the time of survey belong to partners of HUF.
On perusal of the returns filed electronically by Giridharlal & Sons, HUF for the AYs. 2008-09 and 2009-10, it appears that not only the returns were filed prior o the date of survey, but, the HUF is also generating some amount of income. The balance sheet as on 31/03/08 also shows cash in hand of ₹ 70,000. Therefore, assessee’s claim that excess cash actually belong to HUF cannot be out rightly rejected. In the aforesaid view of the matter, considering the fact that assessee’s explanation with regard to excess cash is plausible, the addition made cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete the same.
Estimate gross profit on the alleged suppression of sale - HELD THAT:- No material has been brought to our notice by ld. DR to even remotely indicate assessee has indulged in suppression of sale. Drop in sales for the post survey period may be due to various reasons but without bringing any material on record to suggest suppression of sales, merely on assumptions and presumptions sales cannot be estimated by alleging suppression of sales by assessee. More so, when it is a fact on record that assessee regularly files its VAT returns disclosing sales turnover, which is in accordance with the books of account and authorities under the VAT Act have not pointed out any sales suppression.
At least nothing of the sort has been brought to our notice. As regards the decision of RAJNIK AND CO. [2001 (4) TMI 53 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] on careful examination of the same, we are of the view that it is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case decided by the Hon’ble High Court there were evidences on record to show that assessee has suppressed sales. Whereas, in the present case there is not even a single piece of evidence to show that assessee has suppressed its sales. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that addition made by estimating sales is not proper, hence, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete the same.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1398
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - A.R submitted that the said disallowance is not warranted since the own funds available with the assessee exceeds the borrowed funds - A.R submitted that the assessee is having the view that the availability of own funds and other non-interest bearing funds vis-a-vis the investment should be examined as on the date of Balance Sheet and not as on the date of making investment - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the miscellaneous petitions of the assessee and accordingly, we are of the view that the errors pointed out by the assessee require rectification.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1397
Deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- Admit appeal for following question of law -
“If the Tribunal fell into error in the circumstances of the case in continuing the benefit of Section 10A to assessee for Assessment Year 2005- 06 on the ground that enhanced claim way of including 18 units as independently entitled to the benefit so made, was not tenable.”
-
2015 (3) TMI 1395
Disallowance of payment made by the firm to the spouse of the deceased partner - CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the claim of the appellant - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (12) TMI 86 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held it is clearly a gratuitous payment made by the assessee firm which was not an allowable business expenditure u/s 37(1) –Decided in favor of revenue
-
2015 (3) TMI 1394
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of difference between revenue expenditure claimed and depreciation allowed - HELD THAT:- Where penalty has been imposed by A.O. in view of the difference of opinion between assessee and the A.O. Assessee treated the expenditure as revenue expenditure whereas, the A.O. treated the purchase of software as capital asset. All the particulars were before the A.O. from which only he could arrive at a conclusion that assessee had debited the expenditure in the P & L account.
It is not a case where there was any wrong furnishing of particulars of income or concealment of income. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1393
Disallowance of miscellaneous income arising out of scrap sale as deduction from pre-production capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- The interest income earned on the excess borrowed fund was assessed as income of the assessee. However in this case before us, the assessee has generated scrap while relocating and erecting its machinery. Obviously the revenue derived from the sale of such scrap will go to reduce the erection cost which is to be capitalized. It is pertinent to note that the scrap generated is not from the production activity of the assessee but from relocation and erection of the machinery belonging to the assessee. Therefore the miscellaneous income arising out of scrap sale from such activity should be reduced from the pre-production capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. Thus this ground raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour.
Disallowance of prior period expenses - HELD THAT:- In mercantile system of accounting, only the expenditure that has crystallized during the relevant assessment year is to be treated as allowable deduction. In this case, it is apparent that the payment made by the assessee had crystallized as expenditure during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed the same as allowable deduction. In these circumstances, we hereby direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee as allowable deduction. It is ordered accordingly.
Disallowance of expenses towards prepayment premium and interest recompense - HELD THAT:- As relying on GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD. [2013 (7) TMI 701 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED [2009 (1) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT DELHI] we hereby direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to delete the additions made on account of disallowance being the payment towards interest recompense on CDR scheme. Thus this issue is also held in assessee’s favour.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1384
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee has not complied with the notices under sections 143(2)/142(1) - HELD THAT:- As decided in SARDARMAL KOTHARI [2013 (3) TMI 815 - ITAT CHENNAI] when an assessment has been made under sec.143(3) and not under sec.144 of the I.T. Act, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, there is no case for levy of penalty under sec.271(1)(b) of the Act - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1380
Rejection of additional grounds in limine by CIT-A - CIT (Appeals) rejected the three additional grounds of appeal on the ground that omission to take these grounds originally in Appeal is wilful and unreasonable. - HELD THAT:- The grounds of appeal nos. 1,2 and 3 as made out before the Tribunal were verbatim repetition as grounds of appeal which were raised by the appellant before the CIT (Appeals) we find that this was not the basis of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal in respect of grounds 1,2 and 3. The submission on the part of the revenue is hypertechnical and not appreciated as it defeats the purpose and object of the hierarchy of authorities created under the Act to redress the grievances of the assessee.
The question as formulated is answered in favour of the assessee and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent it rejects ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the same are restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh disposal. It may be pointed out that the CIT (Appeals) after having rejected the Appellant's additional grounds proceeds further to deal with the ground nos.1, 2 and 3 and rejects the same on merits. This is an additional reason that the Tribunal ought to have considered grounds 1,2 and 3 raised by the Appellant on merits which it failed to do.
On the aforesaid issue alone the appeal is restored to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to hear the Appellant and pass a fresh order on ground nos. 1,2 and 3 urged by the appellant as expeditiously as possible.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1379
Deduction u/s 54EC - as per AO second tranche invested in the succeeding previous year, would not be eligible for deduction under section 54EC(1) AND the second investment was for a different financial year - DR submitted that investments made in two years when aggregated exceeded the limit of ₹ 50 lakhs set out in the section and therefore assessee ought not to have been given the relief - HELD THAT:- As relying on case C. JAICHANDER [2014 (11) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] from a reading of Section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied. It would have made a difference, if the restriction on the investment in bonds to ₹ 50,00,000/- is incorporated in Section 54EC(1) of the Act itself. However, the ambiguity has been removed by the legislature with effect from 1.4.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and the subsequent years. For the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue and these appeals are dismissed.
We therefore find CIT(A) to be justified in giving the deduction under section 54EC to the assessee in full - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1378
Validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) - assessment made on a dead person - HELD THAT:- Assessee expired on 23.12.2007 and this fact was brought to the notice of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings vide assessees’s authorized representative Chartered Accountant, letter dated 1.9.2009. The Bench had called for the assessment record to verify whether the said letter was filed by the assessee and was forming part of the assessment record or not.
DR confirmed during the course of hearing by producing the assessment record that the said letter of the assessee dated 1.9.2009 was there in the assessment record. This proves that the assessee’s AR had brought to the notice of the AO the factum of the death of the assessee - AO, thereafter, instead of taking steps to bring the legal heirs on record, proceeded to frame the assessment of a dead person.
Thus, this issue is covered by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Akhter Nooruddinahmed Saiyed [2014 (6) TMI 113 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] DR could not bring any material before us to show that the impugned assessment order was passed after issuing any notice to the legal representative of the deceased individual. Therefore, in our considered view, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable.
........
|
