This is a clear case where the primary facts were available before the AO, and therefore, the assessee cannot be held to have failed to disclose “fully and truly all material facts”. In our opinion, it was for the AO to draw the appropriate inference. The assessee is/was under no obligation to draw the inference of fact or law based on the primary facts available on record.
It is an admitted position that under the provisions of Section 391 the Central Government and the IT Authority do not have any powers to intervene or to be heard on any scheme which is filed seeking sanction of this Court u/s 391 of the Companies Act. This question was considered and decided by the learned Single Judge in case of Jindal Iron & Steel Ltd. (supra) and in the case of AVM Capital Services (P.) Ltd. (supra).
If there is any defect in appeal, in terms of the procedure prescribed by rule 4.03 of Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual, that defect may be intimated to the appellant for curing the same without compulsion since curable defects do not take away right to appeal. Therefore, such valuable right should not be casually denied on flimsy ground of technicalities without scrutiny according to procedure prescribed by Judicial Manual.
Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) has released an FAQ each on Leave and Children Education Allowance Scheme (CEA), which are very useful to the Central Government Employees
Representations from field formations have been received intimating that owing to the delays in PAN Migration, PAN de-duplication and restoration, certain cases remain to be processed. However, AST does not permit these cases to be processed. Therefore, with the Board’s approval, the facility of Online TMS is extended for the cases time barring on 31-3-2013.
Highlighting the issue of arrest, Mr Bose said that government doesn’t intend to use such provisions indiscriminately. The effort is to ensure that those getting away by must pay their share of taxes and these provisions must be seen in that context.
The original demand of Rs. 225.86 crores comprised of two components as per the petitioner. The two components were Rs. 114 crores towards the alleged principal tax liability and Rs. 110 crores towards the purported interest liability. We shall first consider the Rs. 110 crores interest liability. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said figure of Rs. 110 crores can be broken up into three components.
Assessee had produced relevant evidence before the CIT (Appeals) establishing that all the persons, who had deposited the share application, were not fictitious persons. Most of them were identifiable; they made the payment by cheques and most of them were assessed to Income-tax. The Tribunal has given further relief to the assessee and has not accepted the argument of the department that the explanation furnished by the assessee for the addition under Section 69 on account of unexplained investment was not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.
Arrangement by which the respondent-assessee sent tickets to the stockists who in turn sold the same to their agents did not indicate that the sale took place at the point of dispatch of tickets to the stockists. We also notice that the unsold tickets are to be returned to the organizing agent of the respondent-assessee at least one day before the actual date of the draw and any tickets received thereafter would not be accepted and treated as sold by the stockists. This makes it clear that those tickets which are returned by the stockists cannot be treated as having been sold. The corollary to this is that mere dispatch of tickets to the stockists would not entail a sale. It is only those dispatches of tickets which are not returnable in the manner indicated above which would be recorded as sales. Thus, till the date of the draw or just prior to the date of the draw it cannot be ascertained as to whether the dispatched tickets were actually sold or not. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and consequently, decide this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Apex Court has observed in Ajantha Industries (supra) is that while transferring the case on the ground of co-ordinated investigation, some reason has to be given by the commissioner which reveals why it is necessary to transfer the case for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation. In our view unfortunately Commissioner of Income Tax apart from stating that case has been transferred for co-ordinating investigation has not given any other reason. Impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside.
