in this case Ld.CIT(A) has in fact restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-consideration and verification from the bank about the amount of actual cessation which amounts to setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, and such action is beyond the powers confirmed upon the Ld.CIT(A) while dealing with appeal. So, action of the CIT(A) to this extent being not justified is set aside.
It is clear that for invoking the proviso to section 147 beyond the period of four years, there must be failure on the part of the assessee to either make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice under section 147/148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that assessment year.
As is apparent from the aforesaid observations in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without even analyzing the issues or recording his specific findings on the said issues raised in the grounds of appeal before him . A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, namely, that every judicial/quasi- judicial body/authority must pass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind by the concerned authority to the issues/points raised before it .
Plain reading of provisions of section 11(2)(b) lays down that 85 per cent of the income is to be applied to charitable purposes or set apart and the moneys accumulated or set apart can be invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5). Clause (x) of sub-section (5) to section 11 prescribes one of the modes of investment as ‘investment in immovable property’.
It thus remains an undisputed fact that no addition has been made on the reasons recorded for reopening the completed assessment. Now, what is to be seen is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, since no addition has been made on the reasons recorded, no reasons for reopening the completed assessment survive and, consequently, the completed assessment could not have been reopened, or whether in spite of no addition having been made qua the reasons recorded, those reasons still survive and the reopening on the basis of those reasons is in order, as maintained by the department.
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that income in this case is chargeable u/s. 44D read with section 115A of the Act. However, I also note that tribunal in earlier round remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to give the finding as to whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under DTAA between the India and UAE.
In this case during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee company had incurred loss of Rs. 1,15,880/- in respect of derivative transaction during the period under consideration. Assessing Officer further noticed that the transactions in question have been made on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange which were not recognized for the purpose of Rule 6DDA and the notification to recognize these stock exchanges was issued only on 25.1.2006.
Delhi High Court in the case of Rajiv Tondon vs. ACIT 294 ITR 488 has held that in a case where two donors had absolutely no connection with the assessee and they made gifts to the assessee only because he needed money to buy a house and they wanted to help him. It was held that this was not only quite unusual but also quite unnatural. It was incredible that a complete stranger would want to gift lakhs of rupees to a person only because that person wanted the amount for purchasing a house.
Deduction of payment of employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESI cannot be disallowed under section 43B, if paid before the due date of filing the return. ACIT Vs. M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The condition precedent for making the reference by invoking the provisions of Section 142A thus is that there should be something on record to show that the assessee in first place has made such investment outside the books or the investment so made by him is not fully disclosed in the books of account and once this condition is satisfied, the quantum of such investment made can be ascertained by the Assessing Officer by making reference u/s 142A in order to make the addition u/s 69 or 69B, whichever is applicable.
