The petitioner is a share broker. A survey was conducted under Section 133-A of the Act on 24.4.2001 in which a large number of incriminating documents were found. The AO proceeded to make enquiries in which it was found that there were serious defects in the books of accounts. Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal-the Director had created large number of fictitious concerns, which were not doing any business. In the circumstances the AO completed the assessment on protective basis.
The question that arises for consideration in instant case is, whether the payment made by the assessee of Rs. 1.74 crore against the total amount of Rs. 3.61 crore, which included the interest of Rs. 1.83 crore under Section 220(2) and 234-B, was paid as tax or interest.
In this case initially the bank guarantee furnished, was not a duty deposit in advance, but a security. After the duty was determined, the encashment of bank guarantee will amount to duty paid as the encashed bank guarantee lost its character of security.
In the present case we find that the warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act has been issued on 10th November, 2006 in the joint name of three persons. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of Section 292CC, as inserted by Finance Act, 2012 in the Statute Book i.e. the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessments made in the individual capacity of each persons named in he warrant of authorisation was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal were not justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that if the warrant of authorisation was issued jointly in the name of more than one person, the assessment could not have been made in the capacity of an individual.
The assessee, while filing her initial return of income, disclosed her income to be Rs. 1.34 lakhs in the relevant assessment year and the said return finds mention of receiving gift of Rs. 2.50 lakhs from ‘A’. In the revised return the said amount of gift was declared as part of her income. Thus, there was no concealment in respect of above amount in filing the return. She further surrendered a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs as additional income which was also received by her as gift from one ‘U’. In this manner her taxable income was computed to be Rs. 6.34 lakhs by adding the aforesaid two amounts of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each as finally disclosed.
In our considered opinion the order passed by the Assessing Officer shows complete non application of mind. He has not discussed as to what was the difference between the value estimated by the departmental valuer as also given by the assessee’s valuer and what was the reason for determining the income at such a low figure. The Commissioner was therefore, perfectly justified in setting aside the assessment in exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The bank had provided credit facilities to the company. The private respondents in the two writ petitions were the guarantors to the said credit facilities provided by the bank. As there was default in payment of the bank dues, an application was filed before the DRT by the bank against the company and private respondents in these petitions. It transpires that the company was declared a sick company under section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on 8-11-1994 and recommendation was made for it to be wound up. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed.
Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
Sec. 194H – Ad agencies are not agent of newspaper; hence TDS is not required to be deducted on commission paid to such agencies. Where tax has not been deducted at source, the short deducted tax cannot be realised from the deductor and the liability to pay such tax shall continue to be with the assessee direct, whose income is to be charged and a person who fails to deduct the tax at source, at best is liable for interest and penalty only. The above issues thus, are decided in favour of the petitioner. Sec. 194H – Ad agencies are not agent of newspaper; hence TDS is not required to be deducted on commission paid to such agencies
In the present case the Director of Investigation had reliable and sufficient information to proceed with the authorisation for search. No malafides have been attributed or pleaded in the writ petition. The petitioners have been subjected to block assessment on the basis of the recoveries made during search, in which they are pursuing the remedies. The appeal filed by the department has been allowed by ITA, and the matter in remand is pending consideration in assessment.
