The proviso to sub-section (1) to section 209, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 is prospective in nature and not with retrospective effect. The proviso was brought into operation with effect from 1-4-2012, therefore, the assertion of revenue is disagreed with. Even otherwise, the language used in section 209(1) is regarding payment of advance tax in the financial year, therefore, the proviso is not attracted for the impugned assessment year.
A bare look at section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with rectification, makes it amply clear that a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended.
We find that society is running the school under the management of receiver appointed by Hon’ble High Court. For the entire years the income of the school was exempt and for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had obtained prior approval of CCIT, Panchkulla for exemption u/s 10(23)(vi).
Admittedly, as per TDS certificate issued by Mysore Breweries Limited, the total reimbursement made to the assessee as per their newly arrangement was Rs. 3,35,85,000/-. However, in the books of assessee, it was only Rs. 2,54,97,000/-. The assessee had explained that a credit note of Rs. 80,88,000/- issued by it in favour of Mysore Breweries Limited was not accounted for by them
Assessee secured a licence from the RBI under section 45-I of the RBI Act, to carry on the business of non-banking finance, including micro-finance services. There exists Prudential Norms, issued by the RBI. The assessee, being a licensed NBFC, it had to follow the directives of the RBI. It was in accordance therewith, as also in accordance with the Accounting standards issued by the ICAI, that the assessee derecognized the interest on NPAs.
It was incumbent on the AO to supply the information to the assessee, obtain its objections, if any, and pass order after taking into account the information and the objections of the assessee. This has not been done in respect of 20 comparables.
The contention of the assessee that return of income in electronic form was not to accompany the report in Form 3 CEB is not correct. The assessee was required to file the report under section 92E, read with rule 10E, before the specified date i.e., the due date for filing of the return.
In our considered opinion. for making any disallowance u/s. 14A is to firstly examine the assessee’s claim of having incurred some expenditure or no expenditure in relation to exempt income. If the AO gets satisfied with the same then there is no need to compute disallowance as per Rule 8D.
There was neither any other contrary view nor the assessee brought on record any material controverting the findings of the Assessing Officer in this regard. Accordingly, the finding of the Assessing Officer that amount received by the assessee had to be taxed as business profits in terms of the provisions of Article 7 of the DTAA, read with section 44D and section 115A is confirmed and upheld.
In the case under consideration, the assessee placed before the ld. CIT(A), certain additional evidence and admittedly, the said documents were not submitted before the AO. The powers of the CIT(A) in terms of rule 46A to admit fresh evidence, entail an element of discretion which is required to be exercised in a judicious manner.
