Rising litigation with taxpayers is matter of serious concern for the Government. A need for reducing the litigation has been emphasized by the Finance Minister on various occasions. As per the directions of the Finance Minister, a Standing Committee has been constituted in the Central Board of Excise and Customs to identify systemic causes for litigation and preparing a roadmap for reducing the existing litigation and avoiding litigation in future on the indirect tax side. The Committee consists of two Members of the Board, nominated officials of CBEC, and a representative of Law Ministry.
Income Tax Department filed an appeal u/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. High Court, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Income Tax Department challenged the decision on the ground that para 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and not to appeals filed earlier.
We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that Assessing Officer made the impugned addition and CIT(A) confirmed the same, but inadvertently mentioned about addition of Rs. 90,000/- instead of Rs. 1,50,000. Since addition is on estimate basis and assessee has also given some basis for low withdrawals such as getting facilities from employer, free of cost etc, therefore, assessee deserves part relief. As such, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if the addition made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is restricted to Rs.90,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. So, assessee gets relief of Rs.60,000/-.
The assessee has shown long term capital gains and short term capital gains on buying and selling of shares and mutual funds, but, the revenue treated the same as business income based on the claim of the assessee in AY 2004-05 as trading activity of the said transactions. The only dispute between the assessee and revenue is that whether the assessee’s claim of treating the income arising out of selling and buying of shares out of the capital gains is correct or treating the said income is a trading activity as held by the revenue based on the decision in AY 2004-05 is correct.
It has been observed by the AO that waiver of ‘term loan’ is not trading liability, expenditure or loss as envisaged under section 41(1) of the Act. In other words, he has not invoked the provision of section 41(1) of the Act but treated the waiver of principle of amount of ‘term loan’ chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’
In this judgment HC held that CBDT’s Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 applies to appeal filed before the issue of instruction also and all appeal pending on the date of instruction before High Court in which tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits of Rs. 10 Lakh for filing appeal by Income Tax Department can be held as non Maintainable. High Court has held as follows:-
National Legal Mission to Reduce Average Pendency Time from 15 Years to 3 Years National Litigation Policy Document Released The Centre has formulated a National Litigation Policy to reduce the cases pending in various courts in India under the National Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years. This was […]
Money is the root cause of many evils like corruption, black marketing, smuggling, drug trafficking, tax evasion etc. The more developed the nation, the more the standard of living of the people. People want more money to cater to their needs and at a point of time they don’t hesitate to have money from any source i.e. black or white money. This is the point where the concept of money laundering enters and then prospers.
