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.
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.
