There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer once the assessee had furnished all the material which we have already referred to above. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act.
CIT Vs. Gita Duggal – Section 54/54F uses the expression a residential house. The expression used is not a residential unit. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use.
A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has gone on the basis of the documents submitted by the assessee before the AO and has held that in the light of those documents, it can be said that the assessee has established the identity of the parties. It has further been observed that the report of the investigation wing cannot conclusively prove that the assessee’s own monies were brought back in the form of share application money. As noted in the earlier paragraph, it is not the burden of the AO to prove that connection.
The decision in J.K. Kashyap v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 302 ITR 255 is an authority for the proposition that even when an assessee becomes entitled to an undefined and undivided share in a property, through an agreement, which he later relinquishes, the gain has to be assessed as income from capital gain, and not as income from other sources.
The plea of learned counsel for the OL that as and when the monies become available for disbursement as a result of the proceedings under the RDDB Act they should be placed at the disposal of the OL is different from the law explained by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Financial Corporation (supra). What appears from a careful reading of paras 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment is that the OL has certainly to be associated in all the proceedings of sale by public auction or otherwise of the properties of the company in liquidation and the orders of the DRT. As noted hereinbefore, the DRT has issued notices to the OL at every stage. The Court is now informed that since 2012, the OL has been participating in the proceedings before the DRT and now before the DRAT. Therefore, there may be no apprehension that the orders might be passed in the proceedings under the RDDB Act without the participation of the OL. It is for the OL to diligently pursue those proceedings hereinafter.
Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue.
We see no reason to take a different view from that adopted by the Bombay High Court. However, Mr Sabharwal, appearing on behalf of the revenue, raised a pointed question as to whether, in fact, the provision for payment of bonus in this case was actually an ascertained liability.
Minimum subscription would have to be calculated after taking into account the requests made for withdrawal of share application. There is another reason for coming to the same conclusion. Undoubtedly, in this case like in other public issues, there are rejections by a Registrar based on various technical grounds. If as per the clause of minimum subscription, the minimum subscription had to be calculated as on the date of closure, it would be well-nigh impossible to carry out that exercise as more often than not the rejections are made even after the date of closure.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the reopening of the assessments was prompted by the opinion which the respondent formed while framing the assessment for assessment year 2007-08 that the licence fee payment was not an allowable deduction, cannot be accepted because, as we have observed earlier though the genesis of the issue can be traced to the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08, the reasons recorded show that the assessing officer took proceedings under Section 147 on the ground that the licence agreement was not filed by the petitioner in the original assessment proceedings. When there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish the primary facts, it is futile to examine the question whether the re-assessment was prompted by a change of opinion based on the view which the assessing officer took in subsequent assessment proceedings.
In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1964) 53 ITR 261, It was held that the compensation received for loss of an asset of enduring value would be regarded as capital receipt.
