Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)( c ) .
The assessee’s quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court. If the assessee succeeds in the quantum proceedings, it would not even be necessary to consider the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings and so no prejudice has been caused to the department qua the penalty proceedings.
fficers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him.
Section 32 of the Act indeed entitles an assessee, who is the owner of a property, to depreciation. As we have already held, the arrangement between the lessor and the assessee was, in effect, an agreement of sale of the property by the lessor to the assessee. The assessee is, therefore, the owner of the property having acquired the same on 29th March, 1982, itself and, in any event, by 30th March, 1982.
A reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee wherever it is possible to do so. The opportunity referred to is a reasonable opportunity of being heard. There is no other opportunity referred to in the section. The observation in paragraph 3 that the opportunity cannot be said to be obligatory, refers to those cases where it is not possible to give such an opportunity to the assessee.
In the instant case, the search took place in the year 2002 and, therefore, the instant case is governed by Chapter XIV-B. Section 158BB of Chapter XIV-B deals with computation of undisclosed income of the block period.
The case of the revenue is that section 234D as introduced on 1st June, 2003 was retrospective in operation by necessary implication. However, as doubts were raised about its retrospectivity, the same was clarified by adding an explanation to section 234D by Finance Act, 2012.
The issue arising in this case stand covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra).The decision of this court in the matter of Solid Containers (supra) is on completely different facts and inapplicable to this case. In the matter of Solid Containers (supra) the assessee therein had taken a loan for business purpose.
Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. That expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in Section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income Tax is not a Joint Commissioner within the meaning of Section 2(28C).
The assessee has not produced any evidence to indicate the apportionment of the OTS amount of Rs.91 lacs towards principal and interest. It is obvious that a part of above amount was towards interest for the OTS amount was admittedly more than Rs.72 lacs (principal amount).
