During the course of assessment proceedings the Income Tax Officer has raised certain queries with regard to deductions, which were replied by the assessee and the in the assessment order in paragraph no.4.1 the Assessing Officer has dealt with the question of grant of deduction and has allowed deductions. In our opinion, the reasons given for reopening the assessment and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is nothing, but a change of opinion. It is not the case of escape assessment as nothing was concealed by the assessee nor he has failed to furnish the material relevant to the assessment year before the Assessing Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, notice issued under section 148 of the Act deserves to be quashed.
From the documents on record, it can be seen that part of the penalty was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). However, with respect to the rest, the same was deleted. The Tribunal concurred with such view of CIT (Appeals). Several additions were struck down in the assessment proceeding itself and were sent for reconsideration. With respect to disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, the authorities held that the claim cannot be stated to be a wrong claim. Relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, such penalty was deleted.
We do not find substance in the submission of the Respondent-Revenue that there is no requirement to offer a personal hearing as the same was not asked for by the Petitioner. This court in the matter of Sahara Hospitality (supra) has held that it is mandatory wherever it is possible to do so on the part of the Revenue to grant a personal hearing before passing an order under Section 127(2) of the Act. Thus merely because the Petitioner had not specifically asked for a personal hearing it will not absolve the revenue of its obligation to ordinarily grant such a hearing.
Input services used in manufacture of exempted intermediate product is eligible for credit, if such intermediate product is used in manufacture of dutiable final product In the present case, ONGC is a manufacturer both of dutiable and exempted products. Crude oil as well as natural gases are exempted products. The Tribunal has held against the Appellant in regard to its entitlement to avail of input service on the ground that crude oil at Mumbai Offshore is in itself a saleable commodity since it is transferred or sold in part to other purchasers at Mumbai Offshore.
The recovery of the demand on these three heads has to be stayed in view of a strong prima facie case being made out. The balance due and payable by the assessee would work out to Rs.159.49 crores. The assessee has under cover of its letter dated 28 March 2013 paid an amount of Rs.100 crores under protest.
Merely because a financial loss would be suffered by the appellant qua the arbitration Awards which had been passed against him would not entitle him to come under the exception seeking a refusal of the restoration of the company. The position of the company vis-à-vis this stand is that a healthy company who was admittedly operational at the time when its name was struck off would be deprived of its right to function as a going concern and in the bargain would not be permitted to recover its dues which amounts have accrued to it under the Awards of the Arbitral Tribunal.
In the present case, there were undoubtedly three separate contracts entered into between the parties. One was for the supply of cables and the other two for supply of accessories, i.e., Jumpers, Connectors and Surge Arrestors. Both the parties have been dealing with each other for over seven years. The Petitioner itself being the manufacturer of cables and accessories knew that for the purpose of the business of the Respondent the mere supply of cables without the accessories could not be sufficient. The Respondent was in turn supplying cables and accessories to the telecom service providers including Tata Tele Services Limited (‘TTL’). The mere supply of cables to TTL would not have constituted a complete delivery of goods. The peak period in the telecom industry for the supply of cables was the first three months of the year. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Petitioner to supply the accessories would adversely affect the corresponding obligations of the Respondent to its customers.
Tribunal observed that no penalty can be imposed merely because account books of assessee were rejected and that profit was estimated on the basis of fair gross profit ratio. With respect to retention of the portion of the sales tax, the Tribunal stated that no evidence was brought by the Revenue to suggest that assessee had retained a portion of sales tax with it. Assessee filed its explanation which could not be termed as not bona fide. In absence of any corroborative evidence to prove the charge that the portion of sales tax bill was retained by the assessee, penalty could not be imposed.
Referring to R.M. Chidambaram Pillai (supra); Kum. A.B. Shanti (supra); Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) (supra), Tribunal held that there is no separate identity for the partnership firm and that the partner is entitled to use the funds of the firm and that the assessee acted bonafide and that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. We do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and the Tax Case (Appeal) stands dismissed. No costs.
In the present case, we notice that that petitioners belonged to the same family or group. They were subjected to common search operation. Their assessments were therefore, under proposal for transfer. A show cause notice was issued to all of them in which the Commissioner called upon them to explain why the cases should not be centralised at Ahmedabad for effective and coordinated investigation. After considering their objections and permitting the oral submissions by the authorised representative, the Commissioner passed the order transferring the cases on the ground that cases were required to be centralised. Since Bhavnagar did not have Central Range Office, they could be transferred at Ahmedabad. Their request that cases be consolidated at Bhavnagar or Mumbai was considered but not accepted. They were instead offered alternative places for transfer of cases within the jurisdiction of Surat, Baroda or Rajkot Office. They did not accept the offer. It was thereupon that the Commissioner proceeded to finalise his proposed transfer of cases from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad.
