The authority of Court to direct investigation was elaborately considered by us in our earlier decision when we ultimately permitted the Central Government to carry on investigation. The decisions in the case of Sreeman Chunder Dey (supra), Vinay Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Ushacomm India (P.) Ltd. (supra) were considered by us in the earlier decision rendered in the former appeal referred to above.
The bunch of correspondence relied upon by the petitioner has been collectively annexed as annexure “C” to the petition and referred to at paragraph 8 of the petition. The affidavit-in-opposition deals with paragraph 8 of the petition at paragraph 9 thereof and does not question the authenticity of the copy documents appended as annexure C to the petition.
The company was in business of publishing newspaper for almost a century. The main ingredient required for the purpose is news print. Hence, it is expected, the company would know the prevalent market rate. In any event, when the respondent agreed to give rebate, the company did not raise any protest. Their protest came when the respondent insisted payment and threatened legal action. The defence so advanced was not bona fide.
In the instant case, the agreement was entered into between the parties on 1-7-2012 and by the mail dated 4-7-2012, the petitioner evinced her desire not to go ahead with the transaction. Indeed, the petitioner unilaterally offered the deduction in terms of the agreement though it would have been understandable for the petitioner even to require a reconsideration of the matter since the termination followed within the days of the execution of the agreement.
Moment the commercial surcharge is recovered irrespective of the provisions of the agreement entered into by and between the landlord and tenant it immediately become exigible to tax as rental income from house property for agreement binds the parties thereto and it becomes irrelevant the moment it is found to be in conflict with legal provision on the subject.
The company cannot demonstrate that it had, contemporaneously or otherwise, complained of the goods supplied by the petitioner not adhering to any of the specifications stipulated in the purchase orders. Even the company’s grievance as to the size of the goods is not tenable since the purchase orders specified the size to be 0-1 mm.
Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
There has to be a sanctity to the order of Court otherwise the Court orders would be meaningless. An order of the Court may be set aside by a higher Court. A Court of coordinate jurisdiction should ordinarily not recall the order of another learned Judge unless and until there was an ex facie apparent error on the face of the record. Moreover, if it was to be done, it should be done by the same Judge if he was available.
This issue in fact fell for decision before this Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 130 of 1998, dated 17-12-1998] wherein this Court by its judgment and order has upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the claim of loss of the assessee in the matter of sale of Part B of the PCD in the self-same rights issue is permissible as short-term capital loss.
While making assessment of any returns any deduction is sought for it is the duty of the revenue official to examine not only the account but also substantive right of claiming deduction under the Act on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not a case that the said assets and properties do not belong to the appellant, therefore depreciation in any assets and properties is a regular phenomenon and deduction on this account is allowable under Section 32 automatically.
