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
The Court took into consideration the definition of ‘interest’ under section 2(28A) of the Act and also analysed the contents of two circulars issued by the CBDT, being No. 65 dated 02.09.1971 and the subsequent one dated 22.03.1993 (Circular No. 647)(sic), and confirmed the reasoning of the Tribunal that discounting charges did not amount to interest and was not subject to tax.
An assessee’s duty to establish that the amounts which the AO proposes to add back, under Section 68 are properly sourced, does not cease by merely furnishing the names, addresses and PAN particulars, or relying on entries in a Registrar of Companies website.
In the present case, the main business of the petitioner is manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products and the vehicles are used by it in the course of business (as written by Respondent No.-2 in the impugned order (Annexure A-1)). This may lead to the inference that proceeds from the sales of such vehicles should have been included in the turnover and must be taxed accordingly.
The Revenue which is in Appeal before the Court, is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT dated 13.03.2009 in ITA-2280/Del/2005. It urges the following substantial question of law for determination by this Court
We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. Learned DR contends that ITAT in respect of above years while upholding the deletion of penalty u/s 271-D, has not considered the aspect of each transactions while ascertaining reasonable cause. In our view it is not so in as much as ITAT has consciously considered this aspect at more than one places and has held that AO though agreed that assessee has reasonable cause in mobilizing these deposits in rural and semi-urban areas, was not justified in levying penalty by holding that transactions based reasonable cause has not been spelt out.
