We find that it is not in dispute that the undisclosed bank account which was detected by the department contains transfer entries to other 5 undisclosed bank accounts maintained by the assessee. In view of this fact the Tribunal concluded that the subsequent disclosure of the assessee of existence of the said 5 bank accounts cannot be held as voluntary.
The doctrine is often stated as those seeking equity must do equity or equity must come with clean hands’. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for granting relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly & correctly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case.
Applicability: Section 185 applies to both Public and Private Companies. Section 185 prohibits the companies: I. For providing any loan to its directors or any other person to whom such a director is interested. II. For giving any guarantee or security in connection with such loan taken by director or any other person to whom such a director is interested.
The Revenue has not brought any positive material on record to show that the assessee actually incurred any expenses in relation to earning of exempt income. In our considered view, before making disallowance under section 14A, it was imperative on the part of the Revenue
Simply because outstanding liability at the end of the year is comparatively higher, considering the amount of expenditure incurred during the year, does not empower the AO to disallow the actual outstanding liability unless it is found that the liability shown was not genuine.
Whether profit % can be applied on estimate basis if books of accounts are rejected, without reference to earlier year’s profit % where books were accounts were not rejected or whether the Assessing Officer is justified in Assessing the profit at a rate higher than earlier year in which profit was assessed by Assessing officer without specifying the reason for the same?
In our considered view, even if the assessee failed to put-in appearance, it is the duty of the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of VODAFONE ESSAR LTD Vs. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL–II & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7028/2010 order dated 02.12.2010.
It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to examine the books of accounts with the related evidences and documents and thereafter should have arrived at a decision. Without verification of books of accounts produced before him and bringing any material on record, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee as an afterthought.
The contention of the assessee is that he has shown income from truck under section 44AE of Rs. 2,01,000/- which includes income of Rs.1,07,890/- from M/s. Chandan Carriers, and therefore, no separate addition of Rs.1,07,890/- is warranted. None of the lower authorities has verified this contention of the assessee.
However, it is a well-settled proposition that the quantum of penalty proceedings are separate proceedings and penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that the assessee did not challenge or agitate the issue before higher forum and accepted the disallowance made by the AO.
