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).
There are concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal that no services are being provided by the assessee to the occupants of its property and that the service charges have to be included as a part of its rental income. The test to determine whether the service agreement is different from the rent agreement would be whether the service agreement could stand independently of the rent agreement.
It is well settled that the Legislature has conferred power to condone the delay to enable the Courts and Tribunals to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. Similarly, if the delay is not inordinate and unexplained when is condoned the maximum that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing parties.
On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assessees whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the assessees whose assessments have already been concluded.
The TDR premium is liable to be paid by a member of the society who desires to utilize additional FSI in the form of transferable development rights. The principle of mutuality would clearly apply to instant case. In the context of the payment of non-occupancy charges by a member of a co-operative housing society to the society, a Division Bench of this Court held in Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [2010] 320 ITR 414, that the principle of mutuality would apply.
