When the specific provision under Section 80HHE is concerned about technical services rendered in connection with software development, we do not approve of the line of reasoning of the Tribunal. One cannot read any such choice available to the assessee for claiming deduction either under Section 80-O or under Section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act. In the face of the finding of the Officer as to the nature of technical services rendered as in connection with the development of production of computer software as spoken to by the company’s Director, we do not find any good ground to accept the assessee’s plea. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal stands set aside and these appeals, filed by the revenue, stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
In the present case, the revisional authority had passed an order in revision on December 6, 2010. The application for rectification was not made before the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order which was the subject-matter of revision but the application was made before the revisional authority itself for rectification. Such an application was maintainable and was not barred by section 154(1A). In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in declining to entertain the application for rectification.
In the present case, the Assessing Officer having examined the entire claim threadbare, any deviation from his decision on the ground that the receipts of the assessee from sale of land should be treated as business income in and not as long term capital gain must be taken to be a change of opinion. It may be that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not elaborate on this aspect of the matter. To our mind the same would be of no consequence.
Revenue submitted that any research and development activity carried out by the head office would automatically ensure to the benefit of the units/industrial undertakings. He submitted that the head office itself does not manufacture any medicines, the benefit of the research and development would be utilized for manufacturing the products and the products would obviously be manufactured by the units.
The fact that in the 80th AGM held on 30th July 2007, the audited accounts for the financial years ended 31st March 2004, 31st March 2005 and 31st March 2006 were placed and adopted makes it clear that any default in that regard by BSMCL stands condoned. No other shareholder has objected to those accounts. They are taken to be the audited accounts. Neither the ROC nor the RD, nor the OL raised any objection. The objection of Mr. H.K. Chadha that adjustment entries have to be made in the accounts prepared by BRS for an earlier period to arrive at the correct picture cannot, in the above circumstances, be countenanced. No material has been placed on record by Mr. H.K. Chadha to substantiate the plea of non-preparation of the audited accounts of the above financial years.
Bare perusal of provision shows that the sine qua non for resorting to s. 260A is the satisfaction of the Court that the appeal involves more/additional substantial question of law other than the one on which appeal was admitted for hearing. The scheme of the Act is quite clear. Decisions on factual issues are within the domain of authorities and should be sorted out before the matter reaches the High Court in appeal.
From a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in section 54(2) in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under section 139 of the Income-tax Act. Section 139 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1) of Section 142 may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment year whichever is earlier.
Applications for stay cannot be treated by the assessing officers or for that matter by appellate authorities as meaningless formalities. Quasi judicial authorities have to apply their mind in an objective and dispassionate manner to the merits of each application for stay. While the interest of the Revenue has to be protected, it is necessary for assessing officers to realize that fairness to the assessee is an intrinsic element of the quasi judicial function conferred upon them by law. Applications for stay must be disposed of at an early date.
Before concluding, we clarify that the observations in the present judgment are confined only to the disposal of the application for stay of the recovery of the demand against the Petitioner and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the assessees, the Petitioner and the Revenue in the pending appeals.
Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to call for and examine the record of any proceeding, if he finds that any order passed therein by the Income Tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. But such order can be passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The show cause notice was issued in respect of matters under Sections 32 AB and 80 HHC of the Act and not in respect of other matters, therefore the show cause notice to be quashed only in respect of matters which were not subject matter of the show cause notice.
