The assessee has not come out with the case that in the opening stock, the excise duty was not included. The explanation furnished by the assessee is that since in the subsequent assessment year, the turnover was less than one crore of rupees and as such, the goods were not liable to excise duty, therefore, in the closing stock of the relevant assessment year, the excise duty has not been added, is not legally tenable.
We already have delivered a judgment on 3rd April, 2013 in ITAT No. 20 of 2013, G.A. No. 190 of 2013 (CIT, Kolkata-XI Vs. Crescent Export Syndicates) holding that the views expressed in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (ITA.477/Viz./2008 dated 20.3.2012) were not acceptable.
It is true that as per the agreement dated 13.9.1991, the assessee company was obliged to make payment for godown space which the assessee committed to hire from M/s. Coastal Roadways Ltd irrespective of whether such godowns utilised by the assessee or not. However, it is a matter of considerable importance that M/s. Coastal Roadways Ltd. never owned or possessed such godowns though so falsely claimed in the agreement dated 13.9.1991. More importantly during the entire period between 1.9.1991 to 31.3.1992, M/s. Coastal Roadways ltd. had not even hired the godown from any other source.
Law is well settled that in case of an order passed by an authority, who has no jurisdiction to pass such order, this Court can intervene and set right the things exercising the power conferred under Article 226. But, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent has wrongly calculated service tax based on the amount shown in the trial balance sheet and included the property tax and income from other sources, which are excluded from the purview of service tax
It is seen that the assessee requested the other two companies to make the expenditure on their behalf by way of scientific research as it was not having sufficient funds at that time. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue or disproved by them. Therefore, the payment was made by the other two companies to the CMI. Even though they made the payment and obtained receipts in their name, the fact remains that they have not claimed any deduction nor shown those expenditure in their books of accounts .
Tribunal proceeded to decide certain issues on merits without giving full opportunity to the aggrieved party to make submissions thereon, the order did certainly suffer from an error apparent on the record. Tribunal, therefore, committed no error in exercising power of rectification. We may, however, clarify that by recalling the said order, the Tribunal cannot seem to have recalled its earlier conclusions.
If the claim of the Revenue that both the assessments were completed by the same officer one under s. 158BC and the other under s. 158BD is correct, then certainly the review has to be allowed as Manish Maheshwari’s case (supra) has no application. We, therefore, allow the review petition by recalling the judgment and by allowing the income-tax appeal by vacating the orders of the Tribunal with following direction to the Tribunal. If, on verification by the Tribunal it is noticed that assessments on both assessees one under s. 158BC and the other under s. 158BD are completed by the very same AO, Tribunal will treat the appeal as allowed by treating their orders as cancelled and by restoring the appeal before the Tribunal for them to take decision on merits after hearing both sides.
It was observed by the CLB that if the Appellants failed to cooperate with NHEL for the determination of the value of the occupied premises, including land, plant and machinery and do not accept the fair value of the assets determined, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order thus makes it impossible for the Appellants to even question the valuation. Having succeeded in demonstrating oppression by the Respondents, the Appellants cannot be compelled to accept an arbitrary and unilateral determination of the fair value by the Respondents not based on any sound financial and accounting principles. The remedy provided by the CLB has thus been rendered illusory.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate for appellant revenue contends that the amount of Rs. 8.65 lacs being the difference between Rs. 80.00 lacs shown in the seized document and Rs. 71.35 lacs shown in the document evidencing to purchase of Candy House property represents unexplained cash paid by the respondent for purchase of the Candy House and has to be added as her undisclosed income. It is his submission that it was for the respondent to discharge the onus on her to explain the noting found during the search of the premises which indicated Rs. 80.00 lacs as the value of the Candy House property. In view of the failure of the respondent to discharge the burden an amount of Rs. 8.65 lacs has to be added as undisclosed income of the respondent Mr. Subhash Shetty learned counsel for the respondent supports the order.
Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL) was incorporated in the year 1969. The company became a sick industrial company within the meaning of SICA.It was proposed that 30 acres of land along with building and structure to be disposed of.
