This conduct on part of the petitioner filing the petition interalia seeking early hearing of its appeal before the CIT (A) and at the same time when the appeal is fixed for hearing by the CIT (A), the petitioner is seeking adjournment on frivolous grounds indicating that the petitioner is not serious about attending the hearing. It appears to be time delaying tactics and abuse of the legal process. In fact on 11th July, 2016 the last adjournment sought by the petitioner was to fix the hearing of the appeal in August 2016. The very fact that the petitioner has been seeking adjournment time and again before the CIT (A) and filing the petition in this Court seeking early hearing of its appeal is an abuse of the process of law.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has taken this Court to Section 132(4) of the Act and contended that the statement made during the search is required to be accepted and the retraction was made after a very long time. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Tribunal and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Assessing officers completely erred in reopening assessments on the basis of either a suspicion that there is suppression of income or on the basis that persons in the same line of business are returning a higher income. Without even mentioning the comparables, no initiation of proceedings under section 147 can be made.
HC held that Though there is a provision to revise the returns filed under the KVAT Act, there is absolutely no provision where the auditor could file a revised report.
In Ajay Kumar v. ITO, the division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act will not be available when the assessee has not started construction in the purchased plot within the stipulated time.
High Court held that that the disallowance of Rs. 70 lakhs paid by the assessee respondent as a condition pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.02.2007 was liable as an expense as same was appropriated by the Customs authorities and it was covered by Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner had detected the defects noticed by the Assessing Officer when audit was conducted of the accounts of the petitioner. It was in that context that the petitioner sent an e-mail, as per Ext.P4, for revision of return, which is said to be dated 29.08.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pursue the application for revision and waited till three years, when a proposal for re-opening was issued under Section 25(1) of the Act dated 27.10.2016. A reply was filed at Ext.P3, in which a contention was taken with respect to the e-mail sent on 29.08.2013.
Delhi HC remanded the matter to AO to verify that claim towards the payment of Rs.3,19,66,460/- does not include any income component and if it constitutes reimbursement, the question of application of Section 40(a)(ia) would not arise.
Assessing Officer had treated the claim of long term capital gain as business income. The assessee did not object to that. In such situation there could be no application of Section 14A for disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income.
In the present facts there is nothing on record in the form of the Advocates letter, etc. to indicate that the petitioner acted upon his legal advise and the same was wrong. Therefore, whether the petitioner acted on advise of his Advocate or not is itself a subject matter of debate. Thus taking the application outside the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act.
