The facts of the case are that the assessee which is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of medical consumable devices and diagnostic equipment for use by the health care professionals, medical research institutions, industry and general public etc. had claimed provision for warranty service. It had contended that this provision was based on adoption of scientific analysis. T
In the present case the reasons disclose that the Assessing Officer reached the belief that there was escapement of income on going through the return of income filed by the assessee after he accepted the return under Section 143(1) without scrutiny, and nothing more.
Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice.
In the present case, the records reveal that the assessee was specifically queried regarding the nature and character of the one-time regulatory fee paid by it as well as the bank and stamp duty charges. A detailed explanation in the form of statements and other documents required of by the Assessing Officer were produced at the stage of original assessment.
Letting out of the plant, machinery or furniture and the premises constituted a single, composite and inseparable letting is based on the tests laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. (supra).
In view of this circumstance, that the assessing officer chose to treat the income under some other head cannot characterize the particulars or reported in the return as an inaccurate particulars or as suppression of facts.
The assessee holds a VSAT license to establish, maintain and operate closed users group, an Internet license to establish, maintain and operate internet services and a license/permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for providing uplinking services.
The Tribunal overlooked the fact that though the property dealer filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer, but owner of the property did not respond to the summons issued by the Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation from the assessee why the documents relating to the property were found in his residence if he had nothing to do with it.
Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the assessment order for AY 1998-99 was conclusive on the issue of date of commencement of the assessee’s business for the purpose of determining its tax liability.
Assessing Officer in the present case, it is difficult to say that the Assessing Officer erroneously assumed jurisdiction to reopen the petitioner’s assessment. The source of the complaint or the tax evasion petition is not relevant; it is the substance of the contents of the tax evasion petition which has to be examined
