We are of the view that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal have approached the issue correctly. The question whether the sale of the stock options would result in long term capital gains or short term gains was not very clear at the time when the respondent/ assessee filed his return for the assessment year 2002-03.
In the present case, we find that the impugned order deals not only with the question of limitation but also with the question of valuation. It so happens that in the present case, the issue with regard to the valuation of the taxable services was decided in favour of the revenue but, because the extended period of limitation was not invokable, as per the Tribunal, the respondent-assessee did not prefer any appeal against the said order.
According to the Tribunal, was a condition precedent for making a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also held that, in any event, the DVO’s report was based on incomparable sales and, therefore, could not be relied upon. The Tribunal also held that the burden was on the revenue to show that the real investment in the said properties was greater than the apparent investment, as disclosed by the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal held, on facts, that the said burden had not been discharged by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and found that the reference to the DVO itself was not in accordance with law.
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.
