In the present case, both, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have found that the transactions in question are neither in the nature of loans or deposits. Under the circumstances, the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act would not be applicable. Consequently, the question of contravention of such provisions attracting penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Act would also not arise. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference.
Mere possession of money, bullion, jewelery or such valuable article or thing per-se would not be sufficient to enable the competent officer to form a belief that the same had not been or would not be disclosed for the purpose of the Act. What is required is some concrete material to enable a reasonable person to form such a belief.
Though Division Bench has specifically made an observation to provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, that has not been complied by the parties. More particularly the petitioner in proving his claims and virtually the claim is made only on the basis of the typed script and no original material is produced and the parties are not at all examined.
As regards the contention that in any event the service rendered by a commission agent is a service received in relation to the assessee’s activity relating to business, it may be noted that the includes part of the definition of ‘input service’ includes ‘activities relating to the business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security’.
Conduct of ACIT10(1) Mumbai as well as CIT10 Mumbai is highly deplorable. Once the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner was transferred by the CIT10 Mumbai from ACIT10(1) Mumbai to DCIT Circle1(2) Pune by order dated 22.11.2011 it was totally improper on the part of ACIT10(1) Mumbai to request the CIT¬10, Mumbai to pass a corrigendum order with a view to circumvent the jurisdictional issue.
Appellant had sought higher deduction of tax at source by annexing TDS certificates and not reflecting the income as shown in the TDS certificates in its return of income. The Tribunal on consideration of all facts had come to the conclusion that remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer would not serve any purpose, as the appellant had consciously claimed credit of tax deduction on the basis of the TDS certificates and even enclosed the same along with the return of income, but failed to show it, as a part of the income.
It cannot be understood by the Court how such glaring lapses can be casually explained away as ‘inadvertence’ and ‘oversight’. It is the bounden duty of the Official Liquidator to ensure and carry out a proper, detailed investigation regarding the properties in question, especially pertaining to the location of the immovable properties, survey numbers and the accurate measurements.
We are dealing with cases where though the amount was not deposited by the due date under the Welfare Acts, it was definitely deposited before furnishing the returns. We see no reason to make any distinction between the employees’ contribution or the employers’ contribution.
The proclamation of sale and holding a public auction are only the initial steps towards sale of immovable property of a tax defaulter to recover such amount through sale of his properties. The highest bidder, whose offer is accepted, during such public auction, has the responsibility to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money on spot, failing which, the acceptance of offer stands revoked.
The expression ‘sufficient cause’ may be required to be construed liberally, provided adequate and proper reasons exist. Liberal approach is advocated in condoning the delay and not being liberal to sufficiency of the cause where it does not exist.
