The Revenue which is in Appeal before the Court, is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT dated 13.03.2009 in ITA-2280/Del/2005. It urges the following substantial question of law for determination by this Court
We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. Learned DR contends that ITAT in respect of above years while upholding the deletion of penalty u/s 271-D, has not considered the aspect of each transactions while ascertaining reasonable cause. In our view it is not so in as much as ITAT has consciously considered this aspect at more than one places and has held that AO though agreed that assessee has reasonable cause in mobilizing these deposits in rural and semi-urban areas, was not justified in levying penalty by holding that transactions based reasonable cause has not been spelt out.
This Court has heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that having regard to the facts, the ultimate disallowance was on account of Section 170(1) which was not even reflected in the orders of the lower authorities, nor adverted to by the orders of the lower authorities as well as the Tribunal in either round of litigation, i.e. quantum and penalty. Such being the case, the upholding of the quantum proceedings by the Court could not have been the only basis for the imposing of the penalty.
Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, J. – The following are the questions of law raised by the assessee in the tax case appeal filed as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the Assessment Year 2001-02.
For the purpose of claiming benefit of deduction of the sum paid against the liability of tax, duty, cess, fee, etc., the year of payment is relevant and is only to be taken into account. The year in which the assessee incurred the liability to pay such tax, duty, etc., has no relevance and cannot be linked with the matter of giving benefit of deduction under Section 43B of the Act.
When there was intensive examination in the first instance in respect of the issue, which was the basis for re-opening of assessment, it was necessary for the AO to indicate, what other material, or objective facts, constituted reasons to believe that the assessee had failed to disclose a material fact, necessitating reassessment proceedings.
The Petitioner Company had entered into Franchisee Agreements with several companies, situated inside and outside Kerala and also abroad, as per which, on mutually agreed terms and conditions, these companies were allowed to use the Trademark owned by the petitioner.
We may notice the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. United Trading & Construction Co., [2001] 247 ITR 819 that there is nothing in Section 24 of the Finance (no. 2) Act which prevents the Income Tax officer, if he is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of sources of amounts found credited in his books to add them to the assessee’s income amount in spite of these having already been made the subject matter of the declaration made by the depositors/creditors. This point, thus, also goes against the appellant.
As held in D. Ananda Basappa’s case (1 supra) by the Karnataka High Court, the expression a residential house in Section 54 (1) of the Act has to be understood in a sense that the building should be of residential nature and a should not be understood to indicate a singular number
The respondent-assessee, in the present case, had in its return of income tax, claimed deduction under Section 80IA at Rs. 12.01 crores and Section 80HHC of the IT Act at Rs. 5.75 crores and declared the total income of Rs. 82.47 lacs. The AO allowed the deduction under Section 80IA to the tune of Rs. 14.04 crores and deduction under Section 80HHC to the tune of Rs. 2.42 crores.
