Section 40a(ia) provides that if any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, then such expenses shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.
The Institute is going to introduce Self Service portal for Students & Members. This release will include view functionality of ‘Students & Member’s Profile and Educational Details as available in the Institute’s records. This release will also includean online e-Diary for keeping a periodical record of Articled Training undertaken by Students, apart from keeping a record of leaves taken and stipend received. This online system is being implemented as a part of the Self Service Portal under Project Parivartan. Frequently Asked Questions on the proposed system are available on the following link:
Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Ramesh D. Tainwala in ITA No. 3853/Mum/2010 wherein the ITAT “D” Bench Mumbai concluded that provisions of section 28(va)(a) would apply and consequently the amount received by that assessee would be chargeable to tax as business income and not under the head capital gains.
This Miscellaneous application has been filed by the assessee requesting for recall of the order dated 24.9.2010 of the Tribunal in ITA No.6830/M/05. Apparent mistakes have been pointed out in relation to grounds at Sl.No.(A), (D) and (I) raised by the assessee in the appeal.
Case of the revenue is that the intention of the donor apart from the gift deed not to be seen for concluding that it was a corpus donation. On the other hand, case of the assessee is that if discussion between the donor and the donee in the shape of correspondence etc. is seen then it would reveal that donation was made by the donor in order to establish an engineering and a management college in the name of his grand-father. The donor has specifically mentioned in this connection.
In terms of the proviso to Section 147of the said Act the jurisdiction to reopen assessments already completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act, after the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can only be exercised on the cumulative satisfaction of two conditions precedent as under: 1. There must be a reasonable belief on the part of the officer that income has escaped assessment; and 2. That there must be a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.
We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the case under consideration it stands established that the issue resulting in the determination of higher income u/s 143(3) was clearly debatable. Respectfully following the ratio of the above judgments which have held that penalty is not imposable on debatable issues or claims/deductions disallowed on account of varying legal interpretations it is held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not imposable in the present case. Accordingly the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.01.2009 imposing the penalty of Rs. 520969/- is quashed.
It appears that all facts were available on record and according to the respondents was only erroneously granted. This is a clear case of review of an order. The application of law or interpretation of a statue leading to a particular conclusion cannot lead to a conclusion that tax has escaped assessment for this would then certainly amount to review of an order which is not permitted unless so specified in a statue.
At the outset, what is evident is that a perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the balance sheet as filed before the bank whose finding of the ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged by the assessee. Obviously the finding of ld. CIT(A) and the balance sheet filed with the bank stands good. Once the difference found with the balance sheet filed before the bank authorities and the reconciliation of the same with the books of accounts would have to be done. How the assessee has arrived at the figures as shown in the balance sheet with the bank would have to be reconciled with the bank as maintained by the assessee. For this purpose we are of the view that the issue in this appeal must be restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication. The AO shall give assessee adequate opportunity to reconcile the difference. It is further directed that just because there is a difference addition should not be made if there are positive difference or negative which can be considered also. In the circumstances and with this direction in this appeal this issue is restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity to substantiate its claim.
