AR invited our attention to the observations of the revenue authorities, wherein, they had observed that the ATMs were just cash dispenser and projector and not a computer aided peripheral. The A.R. has placed certain photographs alongwith short descriptions as to how the ATM functions. From the short descriptions, it can be seen that ATM functions entirely through the functions of a computer.
In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has to consider the composite transaction. The first appellate authority was wrong in his finding on applicability of explanation to section 43(5). Thus, we vacate this finding.
We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, whereas assessee was not represented, hence decided exparte. Considering the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) and various explanations filed before the authorities, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A).
If the expenditure was incurred for operation and work of existing profit making apparatus, it would be revenue in nature, but in case expenditure was on addition or augmentation of profit making apparatus the nature of the expenditure would be capital.
The ld AR has submitted that the actual rent received by the assessee is not more than the standard rent of the property in question as per Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. He has filed the paper book containing 32 pages and submitted that the documents at Sl nos. 3 to 8 of the paper book were not before the lower authorities.
Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that on the basis of information received from the office of Addl.DIT (Investigation), Ghaziabad that the assessee deposited cash in his bank account No.785 in Punjab National Bank, BB Nagar, Ghaziabad during the period April, 1998 to March, 2000 while he did not file his returns for the relevant assessment years, a notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the assessee on 24th August, 2005 for the AYs 1999-2000 to 2000-2001, after recording reasons in writing.
The case of the assessee is that the assessee could not comply with the provisions of section 54 within the time prescribed for reasons beyond her control, inasmuch as the money, which was blocked by her by paying advances to procure the property, was not realized within the time and, therefore, she could not make any alternative investment within the prescribed time. It is the case of the assessee that the acquisition of the property has been completed in 2001-02 and, therefore, deduction under section 54 may be granted, condoning the period of delay caused in complying with the time-limit prescribed under section 54.
In the case of DDIT, Mumbai V/S M/s. Star Cruises (India) Travel Services P. Ltd. vs. 2009-TIOL-351-ITAT-Mumbai Tribunal has again considered identical situation in which the tax was paid in consequence of the order passed by the A.O. u/s.195(2) in the said case, and also after considering Circular No.769 dated 06.08.1998 and Circular No.790 dated 24.02.2000 issued by the CBDT held that assessee is entitled for interest under sec. 244A of the Act.
It is clear from the finding of the CIT (A) that while deciding the issue of setting off of brought forward loss, the crucial and vital fact of date of filing the return and revised return has been overlooked. In view of these facts, the order of the CIT (A) is not sustainable. We, accordingly, are of the opinion that if the assessee has filed the return well within the time as prescribed u/s 139(1), then the claim of setting off of brought forward loss made in revised return filed within the time limit as prescribed u/s 139(5) cannot be disallowed. Consequently, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verifying the date of filing of the return and revised return and then allow the claim of the assessee, if the return of income is filed within the period of limitation.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the tax effect in the present case is below Rs.3 lakh and we find that as per this Board instruction No.3 dated 9.2.2011, the limit of tax effect for filing the appeal before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.3 lakhs and the same for filing appeal before Hon’ble High Court has been increased to Rs.10 lakhs. In the case of CIT v. Rajan Ramanee (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has applied this Board instruction dated 9.2.2011 and dismissed the appeal of the revenue because of low tax effect.
