The provision made for advance tax of Rs.23,50, 000/- debited in the P&L account not added back to income is bonafide mistake. Assessee paid advance tax in the month of March only. It is the first time that provision was debited in P&L account. Had there been any intention to file inaccurate particulars then the assessee could not have paid the advance tax in the last month of assessment year. The assessee concern is a firm which is not having expert chartered accountants at its payroll. Further, this was the first year in which the provision for taxation was debited to the P&L account.
The Tribunal while examining this issue went purely by the facts of the case and held that the difficulties in non-production of the documents as was required under the statute was on account of shifting of branch of the bank shortly before the date of the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Since, these documents at the time of survey were not presented, it was inferred that they were collected subsequently in post survey period.
The Assessing Officer had asked the respondent-assessee, as to why Rs. 1,63,37,365/- should not be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability payable to sundry creditors. The assessee on the same date Was asked to furnish details with regard to the change in address and to furnish the proof of payment made to Makkar Traders in the following years and to explain the current status.
This also appears to be a case where the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands; submission of the respondent that the petitioner has learnt about the one time settlement arrived at by the respondent with the Bank; and it was only then that he approached the CLB this is clear from the fact that he had filed the contempt application before the CLB on 01.03.2007 but he did not choose to mention it before the Board till more than two months later;
In order to assess individuals to be forming association of persons, the individual co-owners should have joined their resources and thereafter acquired property in the name of association of persons and the property should have been commonly managed, only then it could be assessed in the hands of associations of persons. Conversely, the mere accruing of income jointly to more persons than one would not constitute thereon an association of persons in respect of such income.
In the first round of the proceedings under Section 179 of the said Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 5th November, 2007 set aside the order dated 25th January, 2007 of the Income Tax Officer. However whist setting aside the order, the Commissioner of Income Tax directed the Income Tax officer that before any order under Section 179 of the said Act is passed against the petitioner, the Assessing Officer must give a specific finding to the effect that efforts made to recover the tax dues from the said company had failed and that the petitioner should be heard before any order is passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act.
Section 14A states that for the purpose of computing total income under Chapter IV, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. It does not state that income which is entitled to deduction under Chapter VIA has to be excluded for the purpose of the said Section.
. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband, but in joint name with her husband, we agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee herein that unless and until there are materials to show that the assessee is the exclusive owner of the residential property, the harshness of the proviso cannot be applied to the facts herein. Apart from that, 50% ownership is with reference to the clinic situated in the ground floor. As such, the entire property is not an exclusive residential property. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the assessee’s contention that the joint ownership of the property would not stand in the way of claiming exemption under Section 54F.
A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO in the present case shows that there was no rational or intelligible nexus between the reasons recorded by him and the belief entertained about the escapement of income of the assessee company. There was nothing in the said reasons to show existence of any positive income arising to the assessee company which was assessable in his hands and the belief entertained by the AO was based merely on assumption and surmises.
An assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer can be rectified or amended under Section 154 or Section 155 or reopened under Section 148 only by him, and by no other income-tax authority. Similarly, an assessment by way of settlement of a case, which is made by the (Income Tax Settlement Commission) ITSC, can be reopened only by the ITSC and that too only in certain circumstances. Applying this general principle that runs through the Act, an assessment by way of a settlement order passed by the ITSC cannot be reopened by a different authority, viz., the Assessing Officer.
