TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t company. In such circumstances, no disallowance on account of advances made was liable to be made - After careful consideration of the issue we do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by CIT(A) in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of extra depreciation claimed on computer peripherals - Case records show that during the year under consideration assessee has claimed depreciation on computer peripherals at the rate of 60%, however, this was restricted by the Ld. AO to the rate of 15% - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.[ 2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . After careful consideration of the case records we find no reason not to uphold the view taken by CIT(A) by following decision of jurisdictional high court noted above. As such ground No.3 of Revenue Appeal is also dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- We principally agree with the said contention of the assessee. The AO should have first examined the books of accounts of the assessee and only thereafter if he was not satisfied with the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment then it cannot be said that there is any failure or omission attributable to the assessee. As relying on HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IV AND ANOTHER [ 2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we concur with the submission made by the appellant that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act in this instant case by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 26th February 2010 is bad in law - ITA No.771/Del./2012, ITA No.787/Del./2012, ITA No.386/Del./2013, ITA No. 1107/Del./2012, ITA No. 218/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2016 - A. T. Varkey, JM And Prashant Maharish, JM For the Appellant : Shri M S Syali, Senior Adv. Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT-DR ORDER Per A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member These cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi dated 20.12.2011 for AY 2008-09 and by the CIT (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi 18.10.2012 for AY 2009-10. For Assessment Year 2003-04, only the assessee has preferred an appeal against the order of CIT(Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi dated 21.12.2011. All the five appeals were hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h July, 2007 copy of which is enclosed at pages 175 to 199 of the paper book wherein this addition has been deleted by the Tribunal. Ld. AR also invited our attention to pages 200-203 of the paper book wherein the jurisdictional high court vide order reported in 197 Taxmann 230 (Del) has upheld the order of Tribunal deleting the addition. It is admitted before us that fact and circumstances of the issue involved is identical to earlier years. A perusal of order passed by the jurisdictional high court revels that the notional addition has been deleted by their Lordships observing as under :- 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself. The facts in brief leading to the aforesaid question of law may be recapitulated first. The assessee-company is running a five star hotel known as Hotel Le-Meridian Windsor Place, New Delhi. The lawn on which the hotel is constructed belongs to NDMC and NDMC has executed a license deed in favour of the assessee granting licence for a period of 99 years for the running of the aforesaid hotel. After taking the said lawn on licence on the terms executed in the licence deed, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property'. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section 23 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). To put it otherwise, the Assessing Officer wanted to fix annual letting value in respect of the said West Tower sub-licensed by the assessee by fixing its notional value and charging the tax thereupon under the head 'income from house property'. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a) The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus, the assessee was not the 'owner' of the premises. Therefore, provisions of section 23 of the Act are not applicable. (b) It was also highlighted that in the previous years, the aforesaid arrangement as disclosed by the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, on the principle of consistency, such a move on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licensed the premises. The Assessing Officer on that basis calculated first care fee average and treated the same as annual letting value of the said West Tower and added the same under the head income from house property . 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged to tax in his hands. The CIT(A) considered this argument, which was purely a legal argument based on the interpretation of the aforesaid sections on admitted facts on record, but did not accept the aforesaid pleading. After considering other submissions of the appellant, which were raised before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on this ground. In this scenario, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). This time, before the Tribunal, the assessee succeeded in its attempt to demonstrate that the assessee could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as per the submissions given by the assessee company is ₹ 7,33,602/-. Therefore, the interest paid to bank amounting to ₹ 7,33,602/- is being disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid disallowance assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before CIT(A) assessee submitted details of finance charges debited to the Profit Loss Account. It was claimed by the assessee that during the year under consideration no interest cost was debited as expenditure in the Profit Loss Account and hence there was no such claim made in the return of income. Considering the submissions made before him Ld. CIT(A) has held as under :- On a careful consideration, I find that during the FY relevant to the AY under consideration, the appellant company has not paid any interest to the banks as stated by the ld. AO. The finance charges of ₹ 7,33,602/- debited to the profit loss a/c pertains to various services extended by the bankers to the appellant company. In such circumstances, no disallowance on account of advances made to M/s Pure Drinks Ltd. was liable to be made. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fee of ₹ 12,00,00,000/- paid to NDMC during the year under consideration. 3.1 That on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that payment of license fee of ₹ 12,00,00,000/- to NMDC, in earlier years, has been disallowed by the AO himself. 4. That on facts and in law, the AO / CIT(A) erred in charging / upholding the charge of interest u/s 234B 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Ground No.1 is general and does not require a specific adjudication. 9. In Ground Nos. 2 2.1 the assessee is aggrieved by the action of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding disallowance of ₹ 9,43,232/- made by the Ld. AO invoking provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Case records reveal that during the year under consideration assessee has earned dividend income of ₹ 1,44,95,247/-. In the return of income no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made by the assessee. However, the Ld. AO in his order of assessment computed the said disallowance as per provision of Rule 8D at ₹ 9,43,232/-. Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. During the course of hearing b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi High Court. Pending final adjudication of this Civil Suit, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide an interim order dated 6th February, 2002 directed the assessee to make payment of ₹ 1 crore per month to NDMC pending final adjudication of civil suit. In this order, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court as under: Mr Chandhiok, Sr Counsel for the appellants says that he will pay ₹ 75 lakhs per month from February 2002 and if the appeal is not heard till the next date of hearing then he will pay ₹ 1 crore per month from August 2002. List the matter on 8th April, 2002 in the category of after notice miscellaneous matters . Till the next date of hearing operation of the judgment is stayed. If the amount as stated by Sr Counsel for the appellant body is not paid month by month then this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed 11. Premised above directions issued by Delhi High Court assesse claimed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act the amount of license fee of ₹ 12 crores paid by it to NDMC during the year under consideration. The Ld AO however was unimpressed with the claim made. Ld AO was of the view that the amount paid to NDM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. The Tribunal allowed the deduction. The assessee could not prove the actual incurrence of liability under the warranty clause on the basis of fixing a percentage on the turnover. In the absence of any details, accepting the claim of percentage on the turnover could not be sustained. Provision for warranty charges was held not deductible. CIT vs. Totork Controls India Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 311 (Mad) Thus it is clear that the claim of the assessee with regards payment to NDMC is in the nature of contingent liability and hence not allowable under the act and is added back to the income of the assessee. 12. Being aggrieved the assesse preferred an appeal to Ld CIT(A). Ld CIT(A) was of the view that License Deed dated 14th July 1982 was not in force during the course of year under consideration and hence he upheld the disallowance made by the Ld AO. In support of his conclusions Ld CIT(A) has extracted and forcefully relied upon show cause notice dated 12th November 1999 issued by NDMC to the assessee. Conclusions recorded by Ld CIT(A) are as under: 5.4 Thus, it may be seen that as per the show cause notice issued by the NDMC on 12.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. At the outset it was submitted by the Ld Senior Counsel that CIT(A) after briefly narrating the preliminary facts relating to dispute regarding quantification of license fee at pages 9 and 10 of his order has then stopped short at the stage of issue of show cause notice dated 12th November 1999 by NDMC. It was his claim that Ld CIT(A) has omitted to take into consideration the events which transpired thereafter. Ld Senior Counsel referred before us interim order dated 18th May 2001 passed by Delhi High Court in the main civil Suit i.e IA No. 3075/2000 in Suit No. 610/2000 to negate supposition of CIT(A) that License Deed dated 14th July 1982 was not in force during the course of year under consideration. It was submitted by him that being aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 12th November 1999 the assesse filed a Civil Suit before Delhi High Court which vide interim order dated 18th May 2001 refrained NDMC from interfering with rights of assesse to use the land for running a hotel subject to assesse paying NDMC license fee as per the formulae laid down by the Ld Single Judge in that order. In the written synopsis summarized dates chart of the litigation was submitted befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,82,16,368/- already due to the NDMC upto 30th June 1999. 65, middle 12-11-1999 Another show notice issued by NDMC (contents noted by CIT(A) at pages 11 to 13 of his order) 65, last five lines 07-03-2000 Writ of Certiorary WP(C) 7163/99 filed by 'A' seeking relief on various issues including quashing of show cause notices dated 28-06-1999 and 12-11-1999. This writ was dismissed by High Court on the ground that matter involved disputed questions of fact and hence cannot be decided in a writ petition. 66 - 67 - Present Suit No. 610/2000 filed by 'A' for an injunction retraining NDMC from taking any action pursuant to show cause notices dated 28-06-1999 and 12-11-1999. 'A' also claimed a decree for specific performance of agreements. Along with Suit and application for temporary injunction was also filed. 67, top Para 18-05-2001 Interim order passed by a Single Judge of Delhi High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of ₹ 14.41 Crores as License Fee paid to the NDMC. As per the agreement, the assessee is required to pay License fee @ 21 % of the turn over or 2.68 Crores whichever is higher to NDMC as per Clause 3 of the License Deed. It is noticed that the License fee payable by the assessee to the NDMC was in dispute and is pending in the Delhi High Court. The assessee was asked to explain since the License fee payable to NDMC is in dispute, why the same should not be disallowed. The assessee vide submissions dated 20.12.06 stated that the License fee was paid as per the interim order dated 06.02.02 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi Court according to which, it had directed the assessee to pay ₹ 1 Crore per month, which was examined. The assessee had stated that an additional amount of ₹ 2.41 Crores was paid as per Hon'ble Delhi Court's another order dated 18.05.01. On perusal of this order, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Delhi Court had not given any directions to the assessee to pay ₹ 2.41 Crores to the assessee. However Hon'ble Delhi Court's order dated 06.02.02 was passed after the order dated 18.05.01, which the assessee referred. Hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing for the assessee acceded to this request and he placed on record the necessary break-up. It was submitted by the Ld CIT(DR) that final adjudication regarding quantum of license fee payable to NDMC took place in April 2015 has therefore any payment prior to that made by the assesse to NDMC was only a contingent liability. 16. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. In our considered opinion looking to the facts of the present case appellant merits to succeed in its claim made for deduction of 12 crores as a legitimate business expense. Coming first to the allegation of Ld CIT(A) that License Deed dated 14th July 1982 was not in force during the course of year under consideration. We concur with submissions of Shri Syali that Ld CIT(A) has erred in not taking into consideration events which transpired post issue of show cause notice dated 12th November 1999 by NDMC. Order dated 18th May 2001 passed by Ld Single Judge of Hon'ble Delhi High Court negates this presumption of Ld CIT(A). Ld Single Judge in its order has held as under: On 25th September, 1998, however, the NDMC gave another noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition was dismissed by A.K. Sikri, J. by order dated 7th March, 2000 on the ground that since the matter involved disputed questions of fact, the same cannot be decided in the writ petition. While dismissing the petition, the Court continued the interim order granted earlier till 31st March, 2000. Present suit was thereafter filed by the plaintiffs for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking any action pursuant to the show cause notices mentioned above and from causing any obstruction to the amenities like water and electricity to the premises of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also claimed a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 14th July, 1982 as allegedly modified by the agreements dated 11th March, 1991; 4th August, 1995 and 31st March, 1998. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiffs. By this order, I propose to dispose of this application of the plaintiffs for the grant of an ad-interim injunction. . . The only question which remains to be considered is as to how this licence fee was to be calculated. While the case of the defendants is that the plaintiffs were required to pay 21% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lephone Nigam Limited while the telecommunication services are provided to the guests. The payment, therefore, which is actually made to the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited may have to be deducted form out of the gross amount which is received by the plaintiff for providing telecommunication services so that the balance amount received by the hotel is taken as its income. Besides these deductions which, prima facie, may be permissible from the gross turnover of the hotel, in my view, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any other deduction from out of the gross turn over of the hotel. The cost of food and beverages is a part of running of the hotel and cannot, in my opinion, be deducted from out of the gross turn over of the hotel. If this is deducted from the gross turn over, what will be arrived at is the gross income and not the gross turn over. At this stage of decided this application the Court is not deciding finally as to what would be the gross turn over of the hotel on which it is liable to pay the licence fee and it is only a prima facie view of the Court that the aforesaid outgoings may have to be deducted from the gross turnover as reflected in the balance sheets. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits of the case. As can be seen from the interim directions issued by the Ld Single Judge parties were bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in License Deed dated 14th July 1982. The dispute solely rested on the interpretation of term Gross Turnover as certified by the statutory auditors . To this the Ld Single Judge allowed certain exclusions. However assesse was not satisfied from this interim order since in its view it was entitled to further exclusions from Gross Turnover like sums collected for food and beverages, etc. It therefore preferred an appeal against this interim order before Division bench of High Court which vide order dated 06th February 2002 directed assesse to make payment of ₹ 1 cr per month pending final disposal of the Civil Suit. Shri Syali rightly pointed out that there is no direction issued by the High Court in order dated 06th February 2002 that if assesse succeeds against its claims from NDMC then it shall be entitled to a refund of ₹ 1 cr. This is very crucial. In absence of such a direction the payment of ₹ 1 cr per month made by the assessee virtually partakes the character of a confirmed liability discharge of which (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or AY 2004-05 vide order dated 04th September 2009 in ITA No. 450/2011 has held as under: 8. The assessing officer had disallowed expenditure of ₹ 2.41 crores out of expenditure of ₹ 14.41 crores on the ground that it was contingent liability as there were disputes between the NDMC, the Licensor and the respondent relating to the licence fee. This was subject matter of litigation pending in Delhi high Court. The assessing officer has mentioned that ₹ 2.41 crores was not paid by the assessee and he had made reference to two orders passed by the Delhi High Court dated 18.5.2001 and 6.2.2002. The respondent has stated in its letter dated 21.04.2003 that a cheque of ₹ 2.41 crores drawn on Citi Bank dated 21st April, 2003 had been enclosed. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating ₹ 2.41 crores as unascertained / disputed liability and the disallowance of ₹ 2.41 crores by the assessee officer was not justified. The Tribunal noted that by consequence of the letter dated 17th April, 2003 issued by NDMC the amount of ₹ 2.41 crores came to be quantified and the amount paid had been in compliance of the said demand. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws adjustable as per your request against the principal license fee due. However, you may kindly note that the same are being accounted for under heading license fee (Prov.) in the accounts of NDMC. From our records the following amounts have been paid and adjusted towards License Fees: S. No. Financial Year License fee paid (Rs.) 1. 2002-03 11 Cr. 2. 2003-04 to 2013-14 12 Cr. Each year 3. 2014-15 i) ₹ 4 Cr. ii) ₹ 8 Cr. on 10.07.2014 iii) ₹ 2.5 Cr. on 08.08.2014 As per our records the above amounts have been duly credit in D C register and ultimate liability towards license fee shall stand appropriately reduced. The above non-refundable payments are not in any way dependent upon outcome of pending litigation before Hon'ble High Court. Copy of latest bill is enclosed please. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Director (Estate) The above clarification is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest u/s 234B and 234D. Levy of interest will be consequential in the instant case. No separate directions need be issued in this regard. 20. Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 787/Del/2012 is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 21. Revenue in its appeal for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 218/Del/2013 has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,96,49,798/- made on account of income from house property : (a) The provisions of taxability of Annual letting value or property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto are dealt in Sections 22 to 27 of Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the provisions of section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Annual value of property of which the assessee is owner is taxable under the head income from House Property except the portion of the property used by the owner of the property for the purposes of its own business or profession, the profit of which are chargeable to income tax. (b) The taxability of the property u/s 22 is that the said property shall not be in use of business of the assessee itself, the profit of which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssesse in ITA No. 386/Del/2013 is allowed. 23. For AY 2003-04 only assessee has filed an appeal in ITA No. 771/Del/2012. Following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee: 1. That on facts and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) } erred in upholding assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {hereinafter referred to as the Act } by the Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the AO }. 1.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the prerequisites of assumption of valid jurisdiction in term of proviso to section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 2. That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the AO on account of license fee of ₹ 11,00,00,000/- paid to NDMC during the year under consideration. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and incurred and not merely anticipated as certain to occur in future. In view of above facts of the case, I have reason to believe that the income to the tune of 11,00,00,000/- has escaped assessment owing to the failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for asstt. and hence notice u/s 148 is hereby issued for reopening asstt. u/s 147 of the I.T. Act for the AY 2003-04. The reasons recorded depict that the sole issue on which the case of the appellant has been re-opened pertained to a claim for deduction of ₹ 11 crores on account of license fee paid by the appellant to NDMC. 28. During the course of hearing before us Ld AR submitted that on this very issue a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Ld AO during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. In this regard Ld AR referred to questionnaires dated 09th December 2005 and 30th January 2006 issued by the Ld AO during the course of proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and the reply filed by the assesse vide submission dated 15th February 2006. It was accordingly claimed by the Ld AR that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law as the mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt at 21% works out to ₹ 1449.04 lacs. The company has claimed ₹ 1100.00 lacs, which is less than the above. The matter is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, pending final order we have been directed to pay ₹ 75 lacs per month from February 2002 and ₹ 1 Crore per month August, 2002 onwards. Since this amount has been paid to NDMC we feel that the final amount that may be decided as being payable to NDMC shall definitely be much more than this amount. Accordingly, the company has claimed this lesser amount. In the unlikely event of the amount being settled at a lesser amount, this expense will be reversed in the books of the company and the tax will be paid thereon. It is, therefore, requested that the amount may kindly be allowed. After considering the above reply submitted by the appellant no addition on account of payment of license fee was made by the AO while passing original order of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20th August 2006. 30. Case records clearly show that the issue as to whether license fee of ₹ 11 cr paid by the appellant was an ascertained liability or not has already been examined by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In cases where the order passed by a statutory authority is silent as to the reasons for the conclusion it has drawn, it can well be said that the authority has not applied its mind to the issue before it nor formed any opinion. The principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessments would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision on a particular matter in issue. It will have no application where the order of assessment does not address itself to the aspect which is the basis for reopening of the assessment, as is the position in the present case. It is in that view inconsequential whether or not the material necessary for taking a decision was available to the Assessing Officer either generally or in the form of a reply to the questionnaire served upon the assessee. What is important is whether the Assessing Officer had based on the material available to him taken a view. If he had not done so, the proposed reopening cannot be assailed on the ground that the same is based only on a change of opinion. 12. The said observations have been rightly held to be contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied to by the assessee during the course of original assessment then it cannot be said that there is any failure or omission attributable to the assesse. Jurisdictional High Court in case of Haryana Acrylic Mfg reported in 308 ITR 38(Del) has held as under: ..Explanation I to section 147 also makes it clear that mere production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could, with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer, will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the said proviso. This Explanation, however, does not mean that production of account books and other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not 'in any event' amount to disclosure within the meaning of the said proviso. The said Explanation only stipulates that such evidence will not necessarily 'amount to disclosure' within the meaning of the said proviso. However, we need not labour on this aspect any further inasmuch as we find that in this case, the Assessing Officer had made specific queries, inter alia, with regard to the share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
