9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em only yesterday. If a notice of hearing has been sent to the assessee well in advance, it was the responsibility of the assessee to make full arrangements for engaging the advocate in advance and to hand over papers to the advocate. Further I also note that the appeal has been filed by the appellant's Authorized Representative under a Vakalatnama by the name of Mr. Brijesh Verma and Associates, whereas the request for adjournment is being made by Advocate Shri Shambhu Chopra whose Vakalatnama is not on record. He only submits that he will submit his Vakalatnama today. As his Vakalatnama as also "No Objection Certificate" from the previous counsel is not on record the request made by the learned advocate cannot be entertained as he is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises lying vacant during the period July, 2011 to December, 2011, he observed that even if it is assumed that the premises were occupied during the entire period in terms of the agreement but Form 26 AS submitted by the party shows that the party received the amount made by their tenant only upto June, 2011 and thereafter, the premises were rented to another company from February, 2012. He, accordingly accepted assessee's stands that the premises were lying vacant during the said period and no rent was received by them. By observing so, he held that inasmuch as during the period, apart from the one during which the premises were lying vacant, the appellant have received the rent from the tenants and provided services, the same are liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h TDS amount reflected in Form 26 AS is incorrect or inflated or the appellant have made any refund claim of such excess TDS collected by the tenant, from the Income Tax Authorities. In such a scenario, I hold that the amounts reflected in Form 26 AS represent the correct value of the services which has to be adopted as the assessable value, unless evidence to the contrary is produced by the appellant. 7. In view of the above I find no infirmity in the impugned orders confirming the differential duty of Rs. 2,33,186/-. However, as regards penalty which stands imposed under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act and of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, I find that the during the relevant period, the taxability under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
