The Commissioner (Appeals), without application under rule 46A and without recording any reason for admitting the documents and explanation filed before him and without affording reasonable opportunity to examine such evidence or documents filed before him by the Assessing Officer had decided the issue in favour of the assessee, which is clear violation of principle of natural justice.
The word ‘compromise’ itself signifies an agreement between the two parties to compound the offence. If the parties do not agree to compound the offence, the Court has to proceed with the complaint. It is different thing that the Court on considering the offer of payment of cheque amount plus cost may not award a punishment of imprisonment and may only award penalty plus compensation.
On appeal, the assessee filed the details, which are required by the AO, before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) rejected the same. We find that under the similar circumstances in AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and details filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the AO with a direction to give opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the matter.
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court modified the order of the ITAT and, instead of order under Section 263 having been quashed by the ITAT, set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT for passing the fresh order under Section 263. However, the fact remains that at present the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT dated 31.12.2009 does not survive because it has been set aside by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT for passing a fresh order.
Major source of income credited by the assessee company in the profit and loss account is Other Income of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rent of Rs. 1,49,000/-. The assessee had not carried out any business activity in the current year nor the assessee has produced any evidences in support of its argument that it has actively pursuing its business activity. The profit and loss account reveals that the assessee credited Rs. 4,49,000/- as above and claimed expenditure of Rs. 5,24,298/- being administrative exp and depreciation.
Directions issued by the Customs Department, the payment of customs duty has been made though the same has been shown as advance or a note has been appended in the accounts for contingent liability. Therefore, in our view the Assessee has made the payment of customs duty only when the liability has accrued on it. Since the customs duty has been paid to acquire the plant and machinery and therefore, it has to be capitalised,
Reading of the judgment dated 07.7.2011 rendered in the earlier writ petition, it becomes clear that the petitioner had challenged the vires of Section 205A and 205C on the ground that these provisions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also argued that these provisions could not be given retrospective effect. The petitioner had also submitted that huge corpus had accumulated in IEPF as unclaimed amount. All these contentions were taken note of and specifically rejected.
These two stay applications are connected and issues are similar. These stay applications are preferred by assessees on the issue whether the long term capital gains and short term capital gains offered should be treated as business income or profession.
There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned CIT (A). It is observed that learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without considering the merits of the issues raised in the appeal filed by the assessee.
