The Assessing Officer while reassessing the respondent by an order dated 26/3/2002 has in fact taken a ground different from the grounds in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the said Act. The reasons furnished for reopening the assessment alleged that non fund income had been shown in fund based income so as to avail of a higher deduction.
The CIT adverted to the fact that the quantum appeal had been rejected by the CIT (A) and the ITAT. That in itself would not amount to a valid justification for imposition of a penalty. Before a penalty is imposed, the requirements of Section 271 must be established. Accordingly, it would have been open to the Court to set aside the impugned order in its entirety and to remand the proceedings back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.
We find merit in the submission of Mr. Apte that the order dated 18.10.2012 directing the petitioner to deposit of Rs.35 lacs is non speaking order. The impugned order does not consider and/or examine submission made by the petitioner in support of its prima facie case to take a prima facie view.
With effect from 1st day of July 2003, section 108 of The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 specifically confers power on the High Court to condone delay beyond the period of 180 days, if the High Court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the same within the said period. Section 108 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 while inserting sub-section (2)(a) in terms provides that sub-section (2)(a) shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from 1st day of July, 2003.
Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit inter alia of service tax which is paid on (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of the final product; and (ii) Any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product. The subordinate legislation in the present case makes a distinction between inputs or capital goods on the one hand and input services on the other other.
So far as question (i) is concerned, the respondent assessee has claimed deduction of interest on tax free bonds of Rs.5,60,11,644/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give details of interest on tax free bonds. While preparing the said details, it was noticed that 6% Government of India Capital Index Bonds purchased during the year had inadvertently been categorized as tax free bonds and, therefore, interest of Rs.75,00,000/- earned on such bonds had also inadvertently escaped tax.
Though the power of the A.O. to reopen an assessment within a period of four years is indisputably wider than when an assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years, the power is nonetheless not unbridled. After the amendment which was brought in by the Direct Tax Laws Amendment Act, 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989, the A.O. must have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment. At the same time, the A.O. is not conferred with the power to review an assessment and he cannot reopen an assessment only because of a mere change in the opinion.
In the present case, the foundation is the Consultancy Agreement between the parties, where it was agreed, as per the Petitioner, that the Petitioner would get a guaranteed fee of Rs. 50 lacs, which was payable on a monthly basis at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per month, at least for 12 months, or at the time when the investment size is achieved and/or if the agreement is revoked at Samira’s violation, whichever is earlier, the outstanding balance will be paid as a lump sum. As per the Petitioner, after 12 months from the date of agreement i.e. 22.10.2007, apart from lump sum amount of Rs. 5 lacs, the amount claimed, according to this agreement, was outstanding. This clause itself cannot be read in isolation. The revised clause and the obligation on the part of the Petitioner as referred in other part of the Agreement, just cannot be overlooked. There are no averments to show that they have complied with their part in full and, therefore, they are entitled to claim this full consultancy guaranteed amount as agreed. The Respondent/company in the affidavit has denied and made a positive statement that there were no full compliances by the Petitioner.
This Court in a series of decisions, has consistently taken a view that the creditors of the transferee Company would have no right to intervene in the petition filed by the transferor Company under Section 391 of the Companies Act. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra)
The contention of the assessee that the payments in question were made to the builder not in the assessment year 2008-2009, but in the earlier years has been rightly rejected by the CIT because, firstly, the payments made in the earlier years if any related to purchase of flat No. B-92 on the 9th floor and not in respect of flat No.A-46 on the 4th floor. If the amounts paid on 07.03.2008 were infact paid in the earlier years, the same would have found place in the agreement dated 07.03.2008.
