Before rejecting the C-Forms as containing discrepancies, the revisional authority should have returned the C-Forms and given an opportunity to the dealer to rectify the defects.
In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the particulars before completion of the assessment u/s 143(3), though the details were filed in the scrutiny proceeding.
Where properties attached by Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) had already been subjected to recovery proceedings by a secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the attachment order was quashed in view of section 35 of SARFAESI Act which makes it clear that the Act would override other laws and would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.
The mere fact that the Assessing Officer was busy in other time- bearing assessments can hardly be an excuse, particularly given the fact that under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time period for filing of an appeal is 120 days. No other statute prescribes the time period of over three months. Moreover, there is no explanation for every day’s delay. A delay of 335 days cannot be said to be routine.
This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-21, New Delhi vide order dated 16-9-2016 for the assessment year 2012- 13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal
The short reason for which deduction under section 80IB(10) has been declined to the assessee is that the assessee did not own the land on which the housing project, by the name of ‘Narayan Bungalows’, is built.
We would not hesitate to observe that the lower authorities which have hushed through the facts to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of principle of preponderance of human probability, had however absolutely failed to appreciate that the said principle could have been validly applied only on the basis of a considerate view as regards the facts of the case in totality, and not merely on the basis of the stand alone statement of the aforesaid third party, viz. Sh. Mukesh Choksi.
In this case, assessee gave her funds to the PMS Manager as in investment and there is no involvement of assessee in day to day transaction of the funds. The result of profit and loss in the end of the year from PMS Account is a capital loss.
In the case of AVTEC Limited Vs. DCIT, Delhi High Court has held that- 1. Assessee is under no obligation to file the same document during assessment in each AY. The AO is to look at the litigation history of the assessee himself and cannot expect the assessee to inform him. 2. principle of consistency is […]
Opportunity of being heard is little more than serving a notice on assessee. It is not an empty formality. Without giving a proper opportunity to assessee, revision proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be finalized as the provisions of Section 263 mandates that the CIT may pass such orders after giving an opportunity of being heard. Since […]
