In Divi’s Laboratories Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that commission paid to a non-resident agent for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and that hence, no disallowance can be made.
It to be settled position of law that right of appeal is neither an absolute nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principle of which must be followed in judicial and quasi-judicial adjudication. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the condition in the grant. If a statute gives right to appeal upon certain conditions it is upon fulfilment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in and exercisable by the appellant.
In the instant case the assessee seems to be quite negligent by not taking the necessary steps for filing the appeal within the time prescribed by the statute .The conduct of the assessee reveals that the assessee takes the condonation of delay provision as granted. The assessee did not care to submit any request for condonation of delay , even when it was brought specifically to his notice at the time of filing of appeal itself.
In the instant case, while referring to the proviso in the newly inserted provisions of section 201(3) introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1-4-2010, the Assessing Officer concluded that he was competent to pass such orders for the aforesaid financial years at any time on or before 31-3-2011 while the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn. [2008] 305 ITR 137and CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) held that the order dated 27-4-2010 passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation.
Merely by depositing the due tax on the amount received on termination of employment the bona fides of the assessee in not declaring the receipt as income in its return of income is not established.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CD placed at Pages 20 to 49 of the Paper Book. Annexure-XIV of the Tax Audit report gives the details of tax deductible under various sections of the Act. Page 1 of Annexure-XIV gives the details of payments on which tax has not been deducted at all.
It appears that there is a difference between the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act and those of Section 23(4) thereof. However, it is not so. As per Section 23(1)(c), if any part of the property was let out and was vacant during the year or any part thereof, and due to such vacancy, the annual rent received or receivable was less than the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the lesser of the two amounts, i.e., t
A very heavy onus is placed on the assessee to explain the difference between the assessed income and returned income and the assessee in the instant case did not discharge the said onus. In the light of the discussion made above and conduct of the assessee, it is thus clear that all the material facts and particulars relating to the assessee’s computation of income were never disclosed by the assessee,
It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record.
The assessee in this case has used multiple year data in computing the arm’s length price. The TPO, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have held that, such action by the assessee is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus it tantamounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
