Calcutta High Court held that the fee or charges received by the Government for parting with its exclusive right to manufacture or vend intoxicants is neither a tax nor a duty nor a fee nor a cess. Here in the present case, the KMC’s exclusive right to built market and let out to shop owners on licence basis under licence agreement dated 15.02.1985 is not a fee as prescribed u/s. 43B of the Act.
According to well established law, learned CIT (A) is required to dispose of the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine. We also found that the assessee, due to change of her correspondence address, was not actually served with the notices issued by the learned CIT (A).
In the case of CIT Vs. SPL’s Siddharth Ltd. (Supra), before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the facts were that notice issued by the A.O u/s. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken.
Since in this case, the land is acquired compulsorily and no amount of compensation has been received by the assessee and further, the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and has not attained finality, therefore, the provisions of section 2(47) (iii) and (v) section 45(5) would not apply in the case of the assessee.
However, it is to be made clear that if no material was found during the search which could show suppression of income, no estimation of undisclosed income of block period by resorting to section 145 could be made. In other words, where there is a material, such an estimation of income can be made. It is not necessary that addition should be limited to what is found during the search.
The making of a new claim if any before the Assessing Officer is required to be done only by way of filing the revised return of income and not by way of letters or by way of filing revised computation etc. But when comes to the Tribunal or for that matter the Commissioner (Appeals), who is also not the Assessing Officer, but who is the appellate authority, assessee does not have to initiate a new claim before them by way of filing the revised return of income.
Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 has clearly held that for making a claim other than what was originally made in return of income, filing of a revised return is mandatory. Neither the A.O. nor the CIT(Appeals) have considered these fundamental aspects regarding status and validity of a claim made other than through revised return.
The question arises is whether the assessee is entitled for the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is explicitly clear that if the co-operative society is engaged in the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members the co-operative society is entitled for the deduction. There is an embargo put by section 80P(4) which was introduced into the statute by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1-4-2007. This section denies the deduction to a co-operative bank. It is a fact that prior to the insertion of sub-section (4) ,the assessee was getting the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Requirement of section 54EC to the effect that investment in specified assets is to be made within a period of six months from the date of transfer, was put to some clarification by the CBDT in Circular No 791 (supra). The question arose before the CBDT regarding exemption of a long term capital asset which had arisen on conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade.
From a bare reading of section 139 and 153A , it is evident that the provisions of section 271F are attracted when a person is required to furnish the return in accordance with section 139(1) or by provisos of that section. Section 153A starts with non-obstante clause and the purpose is only to specify separate time limit for filing the return. The only distinction in section 153A is that the AO is required to issue notice to the assessee requiring him to furnish the return within such period, as may be specified in notice, but otherwise the provisions of the Act have been made applicable accordingly, as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s. 139. Therefore, all the consequences following for failure to file the return u/s.139 will follow u/s.153A also. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT (A) to interfere and, accordingly, uphold the same.
