We do not find any merit in such argument. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana, recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer has reported that the voluminous nature of entries cannot be verified. Once the Assessing Officer himself has failed to verify the entries, there is no reason to disallow the distribution expenses. It is a rule of thumb which was applied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana to allow expenses to the tune of 40%, which has been found to be unjustified by the Tribunal.
The plea of learned counsel for the OL that as and when the monies become available for disbursement as a result of the proceedings under the RDDB Act they should be placed at the disposal of the OL is different from the law explained by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Financial Corporation (supra). What appears from a careful reading of paras 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment is that the OL has certainly to be associated in all the proceedings of sale by public auction or otherwise of the properties of the company in liquidation and the orders of the DRT. As noted hereinbefore, the DRT has issued notices to the OL at every stage. The Court is now informed that since 2012, the OL has been participating in the proceedings before the DRT and now before the DRAT. Therefore, there may be no apprehension that the orders might be passed in the proceedings under the RDDB Act without the participation of the OL. It is for the OL to diligently pursue those proceedings hereinafter.
Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue.
We see no reason to take a different view from that adopted by the Bombay High Court. However, Mr Sabharwal, appearing on behalf of the revenue, raised a pointed question as to whether, in fact, the provision for payment of bonus in this case was actually an ascertained liability.
If the provisions of clause (d) of notification dated 23.5.1995 are perused, it can be seen that the income must not have been chargeable to tax on the basis of any order passed by the jurisdictional High Court and it should become taxable as a consequence of any retrospective amendment of law or on a decision of the Supreme Court. Insofar as the case in question is concerned, it can be seen that the petitioner was assessed with the status as a Firm and that subsequently, following the judgment of this Court in Narayanan & Co.’s case (supra), assessment was re-opened and the tax was re-assessed treating the petitioner as an Association Of Persons. Therefore, situation as contemplated in paragraph 2 clause (d) was not available to the petitioner to claim the benefit thereof.
In the absence of any material to show that said amount was sent by the assessee’s mother and brothers from Singapore, the claim of the assessee does not merit any consideration. Thus the amount of Rs. 78 lakhs treated as unexplained investment under section 69 and assessable as undisclosed income for the block period stands confirmed.
Minimum subscription would have to be calculated after taking into account the requests made for withdrawal of share application. There is another reason for coming to the same conclusion. Undoubtedly, in this case like in other public issues, there are rejections by a Registrar based on various technical grounds. If as per the clause of minimum subscription, the minimum subscription had to be calculated as on the date of closure, it would be well-nigh impossible to carry out that exercise as more often than not the rejections are made even after the date of closure.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the reopening of the assessments was prompted by the opinion which the respondent formed while framing the assessment for assessment year 2007-08 that the licence fee payment was not an allowable deduction, cannot be accepted because, as we have observed earlier though the genesis of the issue can be traced to the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08, the reasons recorded show that the assessing officer took proceedings under Section 147 on the ground that the licence agreement was not filed by the petitioner in the original assessment proceedings. When there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish the primary facts, it is futile to examine the question whether the re-assessment was prompted by a change of opinion based on the view which the assessing officer took in subsequent assessment proceedings.
Assessment Officer in its order dated 28th January, 2005 did not make provision for disallowance of expenditure in terms of Section 14A of the I.T. Act. The assessee has paid interest of Rs.4,49,02,775/- out of which only a sum of Rs.1,33,51,132/- was shown to be relatable to the non-taxable income. The assessee did not maintain any separate accounts for the purpose of the exempt income. The assessee did not give one to one co-relation between the funds available and the funds deployed.
Section 43B of the Act is applicable only in respect of any amount paid as interest to a scheduled bank. A scheduled bank as defined in Explanation 4 to Section 43B of the Act would have the same meaning as contained in the Explanation to Section 11(5) (iii) of the Act.
