Sec. 54F provides that capital gains on transfer of capital assets shall not be charged in cases of investment in residential house. The section pointedly says that such eligibility would be available if the assessee has, within the period prescribed, constructed, a residential house. For the purpose of that section, the residential house so constructed is referred to as new asset.
The very same issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.273 of 2012 dated 12.09.2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Shriram Properties & Constructions (Chennai) Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai-17) wherein one of us was a member (Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu, J). In that case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act holding that the assessee had not filed the revised return of income to offer the amount as income for the purpose of assessment
In short, the Revenue authorities and the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the addition of Rs.50 lacs was justified. We do not find any question of law arising. The entire issue rests solely on appreciation of evidence on record. Particularly when the assessee having made such a statement and repeated the same two months later and in the letter retracting the statement never offered any explanation as to the reason why he made a confessional statement two months after the search, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of two Revenue authorities and the Tribunal.
We do not find that the assessee is entitled to stay of recovery proceedings during the limitation period for the filing of the appeal. There is no deemed stay of liability after the enforceable order is passed by an authority under the statute. In view of the above, mere fact that the petitioner had time limit to file an appeal does not bar the revenue to execute the order passed.
On going through the order dated 28.01.2013 we find that the same has been passed without any application of mind. To say the least, it is a cut-and-paste job. This is apparent from the fact that the paragraph 3 is merely a repetition of the provisions of section 147 and 148 of the said Act. Thereafter, paragraphs 4, 5 upto 5.6 comprise of quotations and extracts from Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
In view of the fact that this pre-condition has not been satisfied, we feel that the impugned notice dated 07.03.2012 as also the order dated 31.05.2012 ought to be set-aside. It is ordered accordingly. All the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 27.03.20 12 are quashed.
From perusal of the observation of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has not decided as to for what reasons, the reasons given by the appellate authority ware found to be wrong and virtually it is a non-speaking order, deciding nothing.
If the books of account cannot be rejected, there is no question of not accepting the loss declared by the assessee. In a business, sometimes the business runs in profit and sometimes runs in loss. Merely because in a particular year, the loss was higher, that would not empower the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts, unless some specific defect is pointed out in its maintenance.
We find merit in the submission of Mr. Apte that the order dated 18.10.2012 directing the petitioner to deposit of Rs.35 lacs is non speaking order. The impugned order does not consider and/or examine submission made by the petitioner in support of its prima facie case to take a prima facie view.
With effect from 1st day of July 2003, section 108 of The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 specifically confers power on the High Court to condone delay beyond the period of 180 days, if the High Court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the same within the said period. Section 108 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 while inserting sub-section (2)(a) in terms provides that sub-section (2)(a) shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from 1st day of July, 2003.
