Tribunal held that in the absence of any material brought by the revenue authorities that the assessee has received amount more than the professional fees which has been declared by him in the P&L account and when the professional income declared by the assessee far exceeds the professional fees shown in the AIR information, then additions solely based on the AIR information are not sustainable.
The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned.
We have carefully gone through sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The deduction under that section is allowed in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee. Hence, the condition for allowing any deduction is the creation of any provision for bad and doubtful debts, which can only be created in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee has claimed the sum of Rs.32,72,731/- without making any provision as stated in sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, we are of the view that the tax authorities are justified in disallowing the same.
The first question is whether the assessee-company had produced reasonable evidence to support its claim of incurring expenditure to the extent of Rs. 32,99,650. The answer is a categorical “no”. This position has been upheld even by the Tribunal. The assessee has not produced details or any evidence to support its claim of expenditure to the extent of Rs. 32,99,650.
Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry with regard to SRO rate as on 13.6.2005 and also the fact of giving the possession of the property to the purchaser on 13.6.2005 itself, and to decide the issue in the light of the Tribunal order in the case of M. Siva Parvathi (supra) and the judgement of Kerala High Court in the case of Veepee Enterprises (supra) and the Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (supra). The Assessing Officer is also directed to consider all the documents produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) while deciding the issue as the grievance of the Assessing Officer is that assessee has submitted additional evidence which was not filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer.
If we consider the facts of the case under consideration, we noticed that the A.O. did not reject the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee by invoking section 145(3) of the Act. The assessee raised the ground before the CIT(A) that reference under section 142A to the D.V.O. is without jurisdiction as the A.O. did not reject the books of account.
Objects of the appellant even after the amendment of the trust deed continue to be charitable. The amendment is a mere power conferred on the Trust or other institution. It has to be shown on facts that any amendment to the objects clause has resulted in the trust or institution becoming non charitable in character.
After going through the order of CIT(A), We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
The language used in section 10(23C)(iiiad)speaks about existence of solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit if the annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. However, if the aforesaid chart/income is analysed, we find that a huge abnormal profit has been created/earned by the assessee and the amounts are definitely beyond the prescribed limit.
No doubt in a normal situation, so far as matters capable of two views being taken will be outside the ambit of section 154. However, right now, we are dealing with interpretation of section 10(10C) and so far as this interpretation is concerned, law laid down by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is that an interpretation in favour of the assessee is to be adopted.
