Tribunal has on examination of the agreement dated 30-4-2003 entered into between ‘R’ and the assessee concluded that ‘R’ in terms of the agreement had only a right to use the network during the tenure of the 20 year agreement. Further, that the agreement was liable to be terminated at the sole discretion of ‘R’ and, consequently, the amount received as advance for 20-year lease period would have to be returned on such termination for the balance un-utilized period.
In this case, the AO had not only stated that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court as it was rendered earlier, but has taken liberty of criticizing the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal granted depreciation ‘even though the ITAT was aware that such custom duty was not payable by a subsequent notification by the Govt. of India in 1987.’ He ought not to have done so.
Undoubtedly an order of assessment which has been passed for a subsequent assessment year may furnish a foundation to reopen an assessment for an earlier assessment year. However, there must be some new facts which come to light in the course of assessment for the subsequent assessment year which emerge in the order of assessment.
Tribunal in the penalty proceedings has by its order, independent of the findings in quantum proceedings, has reached a conclusion that various incriminating documents found during search established that the appellant’s were manipulating its accounts so as to reduce its profits. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposable and has been rightly imposed by the authorities under the Act.
Section 14A would have no application to the present facts. It is not the revenue’s case that bad debts have been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. Section 50 of SIDBI Act, 1989 only exempts payment of income tax. It does not provide that such income of the SIDBI Bank will not be a part of the total income. This would happen in cases of income specified in sections 10 and 10A. Even otherwise this issue was not raised before the authorities and cannot be now urged in an appeal under section 260A.
Considering the fact that the dispute between the partners in respect of the accounts of the said firm was referred to the arbitrator who was an independent person and the said arbitrator looking to the entire evidence has accepted the balance-sheet audited by the 1st Respondent as correct, we see no reason to interfere with the prima facie view of the Institute on the complaint filed by the Petitioner.
Corrupt public servant deserves no sympathy and ruling out any leniency towards public servant who has been found guilty by the trial court, also made it clear that each of the criminal case is required to be decided with reference to the individual facts of each case.
In the present case, the evidence in the form of confirmatory letters, deed of gifts etc. were found during the course of search. The authorities on examination of the confirmatory letters and surrounding circumstances reached a prima facie view that the gifts were not genuine. A notice dated 27.06.1996 under Section 158BC of the Act was accordingly issued.
The investment with the sister-concerns had no nexus to the assessee’s business activities. They were merely invested for the purpose of earning interest. The assessee has not even established that one of its business activities was to advance loans to third parties and/or to invest its funds and that it was a mere coincidence that over the years, all the advances were made to and the investments were made in their sister-concerns.
Tribunal has considered the entire evidence and on facts come to the conclusion that the profits earned by Kandla division of the respondent-assessee is not abnormally high due to any arrangement between the respondent-assessee and its German Principal. The Tribunal correctly held that extraordinary profits cannot lead to the conclusion that this is an arrangement between the parties.
