It is not disputed that there was an agreement to sell between the assessee and M/s Shinestar Buildcon P Ltd. and in terms of the agreement the assessee received Rs. 18 crores as earnest money. Subsequently, the said earnest money was forfeited by the assessee and the same was claimed as capital receipt.
First to setting-off the carry forward speculative losses against the speculative profit and then set-off the business losses to the extent of the balance speculation profit and other income.
One has to keep in mind the fact that while reopening of an assessment cannot be asked for by the assessee on the ground that it had not furnished Form No. 10 during the original assessment proceedings, this does not mean that when the revenue reopens the assessment by invoking section 147, the assessee would be remediless and would be barred from furnishing Form No. 10 during those assessment proceedings. Therefore, Form No. 10 could be furnished by the assessee-trust during the reassessment proceedings.
Whether the penalty was imposed U/s 271(1)(c ) because of the reason that the deduction claimed under section 80-IB by the respondent-assessee was ultimately allowed at a lower level were valid?
The assessment record reveals that the MLA had been placed on the record of the Assessing Officer in the very first instance when the assessment was completed under section 143(3). Thereafter the reassessment proceedings were initiated for those proceedings too and what drove the revenue to issue notice and reopen the proceedings was the master licensing agreement and the nature of ‘royalty income’. The Assessing Officer in that instance consciously after going through the material concluded that the rate of taxation was 15 per cent in the reassessment proceedings.
After the search and the statement recorded under section 132(4), the assessee, on being issued with notice under section 153A did not file any return. The notice under section 153A was issued on 20-7-2006. It was only when assessment proceedings were taken up for consideration, did the assessee, by letter dated 14-8-2007, request that its return, filed on 31-10-2005,
Even if it is assumed that the assessee continued to remain the owner of the property throughout the year, the other condition of section 32, that the property should have been used for the purpose of the assessee’s business has not been satisfied. There is no proof that the director resided in the property and it was only a claim made by the assessee in the course of the arguments.
In the present case, the impugned reasons behind the notice dated 28.03.2012, which we have extracted above, does not even carry a whisper that there has been a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Even the order rejecting the objections does not indicate as to what material fact has not been disclosed by the assessee.
Last aspect of the matter i.e., the argument as to why yet another Form was filed on 05.04.2004. The conduct of respondent no. 3 in this regard is explained by reference to ROC’s letter dated 26.03.2004, whereby they were advised to file a revised duplicate Form by an authorised person to rectify the objections. It is quite possible that having received the said communication, respondent no.3 filed yet another Form on 05.04.2004.
In the present case, we find that the assessing officer was clearly wrong in holding against the assessee by concluding that the assessee had not offered any explanation. This fact has been realized both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is clear that the assessee had offered an explanation.
