In this case high Court has issued guideline to Income Tax Department in respect of the following :- Uploading Of Wrong Or Fictitious Demand Adjustment Of Refund Contrary To The Mandate Of Section 245 Of The Income Tax Act Denial Of Interest Where Assessee Not At Fault Credit Of Tax Deducted At Source (TDS) Non-communication of adjusted Section 143(1) intimations
As regards the second proposed question, the facts are that the respondent! assessee had purchased the land in question sometime in 1994-96. Since then, the respondent! assessee had shown the said land in its balance sheet as a fixed asset. The same had been consistently shown as such by the respondent! assessee in all the years including the assessment year 2006-07.
Respondent took a business decision not to honour its commitment of fulfilling the export entitlement in view of loss being suffered by it. The Assessing officer does not dispute this fact nor does he doubt the genuineness of the claim of the expenditure being for business purpose. In these facts the Tribunal held that respondent assessee has not contravened any provisions of law and thus the forfeiture of bank guarantee was compensatory in nature under Section 37(1) of the Act.
It had held that the assess was in possession of the shares in question and had sold the said shares in course of ordinary transaction of sale of shares at stock exchange and if the broker did not file any evidence since the same were seized by the Revenue Department, there is no fault with the assessee. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the shares in question were allotted to the assessee in the public issue which were held in demat a/c of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. The shares were transferred to Abhipra Capital Ltd. The sale consideration was received by demand draft. Therefore, the transaction in question cannot be said to be fake and is a genuine transaction.
As far as the present case is concerned, none of the circumstances were narrated by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the Appellate Authority concerned in support of the contention that the claim for allowance should not be disallowed. The mere circumstance, that the amount had been remitted to the account of the payee, would not be a good ground to accept the case of the assessee that Section 40A(3) of the Act will not applied to the case.
In the reopened assessment, the AO has taken the view that the amount in fact did not represent any capital gains on sale of shares, but represented the undisclosed income of the assessee brought in by means of an accommodation entry given by My Money Security Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly he brought the amount to tax with the narration undisclosed income introduced under guise of short term capital gains.
When the Settlement Commission examines an application in terms of statutory powers and finds that such application does not satisfy the legal requirements, as contained in section 245C(1) of the Act, in our view, unless such decision of the Commission is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be warranted.
We find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have arrived at a finding of fact that Assessing officer did not have any reasonable belief to come to the conclusion that that there has been any escapement for the assessment year 2003-04. The order of MERC dated 01.07.2004 specifically deals with regard to fixing of the tariff rate at which power has to be supplied to the consumer.
The case of the petitioners is that the impugned explanation below sub-section (13) to section 80IA provides for a levy of tax which was hitherto unknown. It is, therefore, urged that the Court should examine the reasonableness of such provision particularly when the same is brought into operation with retrospective effect. Section 80IA(4) provides for deduction under certain circumstances. If such deductions are withdrawn with retrospective effect, surely there would be a case of providing for a levy which was till then not known.
The Assessing Officer while reassessing the respondent by an order dated 26/3/2002 has in fact taken a ground different from the grounds in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the said Act. The reasons furnished for reopening the assessment alleged that non fund income had been shown in fund based income so as to avail of a higher deduction.
