The learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He submitted that no cost of acquisition was incurred by the assessee as per the terms and conditions of the registered lease deed, and therefore in accordance with the provision of section 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, the cost of acquisition has to be taken at NIL. He referred to the term-4 of the lease deed dated 15.9.1966 wherein it was agreed that all the building and structure put up by the lessee on the said land remain the property of the lessee only.
Where the HUF was in existence during the relevant year and a partition took place later, for purposes of initiating reassessment proceedings for that year, it would not be necessary to issue notice to every member of the family – Lakshminarain Bhadani v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 594 (SC).
The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the view taken in Exts.P11 and P13 is illegal. Ext.P9 judgment has attained finality. In that judgment, it has been specifically found that Ext.P2 application was not pending. It was therefore that the petitioner sought restoration of Ext.P2.
Circular No. 777 dated 17th March 1999 issued by the CBDT makes it clear that such certificate cannot have retrospective effect. The reason put forth by the assessee that he had a bona fide belief, as for earlier financial years the Assessing Officer of the contractor allowed the assessee to credit or pay without deduction of tax at source did not find favour with the Tribunal on the ground that the Circular issued under Section 197 (1) of the Act cannot have retrospective effect.
In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on the dock and he also admitted his fault, though he tried to shift the blame to his employee whose whereabouts were never known. Even in his bail application he had confessed to his role in the alleged irregularities and illegalities.
The appellant may have a very good case on merits and would possibly be able to establish in an appropriate proceeding that the respondent have acted in a fraudulent manner and defrauded him to Rs. 2 crore. However, in proceedings for winding up the company, the Court cannot adjudicate upon a bona fide disputed debt. It is well settled principle of company law that wherever there is a bona fide disputed debt, the petition for winding up of a company is not appropriate remedy to enforce the debt. In the circumstances, no fault is found with the order of the Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is to be dismissed.
Assessee is in the TT enabled services, whereas the said company Apex Knowledge Solutation Pvt. Ltd., is in the business of E-publishing which cannot be said to be in the same line of business. The functional differences are likely to affect the profit marking capacity of both the companies. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that this company is also to be excluded from the list of comparables.
