It has not been disputed that the four sellers of the agricultural lands were neither examined nor their statements recorded, nor sec. 50C was invoked against them. Under these circumstances, the addition on the basis of a presumption which according to I.T. Act can only be raised against seller, cannot be made in the hands of the purchaser. Besides, we find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the assessee that provisions of sec. 142A cannot be applied against a transaction which is stock in trade. Order of CIT(A) is upheld as being on just and proper observation.
Amended section 10B as well as section 10A, 10AA, 10BA were introduced in the Act with a specific purpose. All these sections can be classified as ‘special provisions’ with regard to allowable deductions in certain areas. Said sections contain an in-built mechanism for computing the profits arising out of the business activities of the units/undertakings. It is a fact that above sections, including section 10B talk about ‘deductions’, but it is also a fact that still they are part of Chapter III i.e., the chapter that deals with income which do not form part of total income.
The issue as to whether there was concealment of particulars of income on the part of the assessee so as to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) depends on the acceptability of the explanation of the assessee that the mistake in this regard was inadvertent due to his ignorance of Indian Income-tax law, hence there was bona fide reason for the same.
It is not a case where the Assessing Officer has brought any material on record to indicate that the revenue was aware of the non-genuineness of the gift received by the assessee. Except vague observations that there was a fake gift racket nothing specific has been pointed out in the case of the assessee. In fact action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee has concealed income is contradictory in terms for the simple reason that the Investigation Wing appears to have passed on the information, in the year 2002, to the Assessing Officer that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was taken by assessee in the form of a gift from ‘B’, the record indicates a gift of Rs. 1 lakh only.
Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by succession, inheritance or devaluation, the cost of acquisition of asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be. In the case before us, the assessee became owner of property by inheritance.
Agility Logistics (P.) Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Mere addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment cannot automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)
The assessment order is silent on the provisions of section 43B(f) and has blindly allowed unpaid portion of leave encashment as an allowable deduction. There has been no proper inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer. There is no discussion in the assessment order whether unpaid portion of the leave encashment is an allowable deduction. In the instant case, there is no discussion at all in the assessment order why the unpaid leave encashment is allowed as deduction. Prima facie, it is felt that the Assessing Officer has not noted the relevant statutory provisions viz., section 43B(f). It is a settled law that non-consideration of mandatory provisions of law in an order will lead the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
it is noticed that the assessment is an ex-parte assessment and also before the ld. CIT(A) there has been no representation. We are of the view that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the ld. AO. It is also noticed that the ld. AR has specifically agreed that there would be no default on the part of assessee in de-novo setting aside assessment. In this situation the issue is restored to the file of AO for denovo assessment after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.
In the instant case, it is found that the eligible new asset was not purchased within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place. Thus, the amount which is not utilized by the assessee for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139 was required to be deposited as per the provisions of sub-section (4) for availing deduction under section 54F in respect of those amounts also. In other words, as per the plain language employed in the above sub-section (4), only the amount which was actually utilized by the assessee for the purpose of purchase of the new residential house before the date of furnishing of the return of income under section 139 shall only be eligible for computation of deduction under section 54F(1).
Coming to the facts of the case, the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities to furnish confirmations in respect of the impugned credits by the Assessing Officer (refer page 2 of the assessment order). A final show-cause notice was issued by him on 22/03/2006, stating the said fact, and by way of allowing a last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, for 24/03/2006, and which (notice) again remained un-responded, even up to the date of passing of the assessment order, i.e., 29/03/2006 (refer page 3 of the assessment order).
