There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned CIT (A). It is observed that learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without considering the merits of the issues raised in the appeal filed by the assessee.
The return of income in the present case was filed at a loss of Rs.19,03,733/-. The only addition made to that loss is regarding depreciation claimed on computers which is granted by the Assessing Officer @15% as against the claim of the assessee of 60% and excess depreciation claimed by the assessee has been computed at Rs.66,15,933/-. Learned CIT (A) has granted relief to the assessee by way of an ex parte order on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vide order dated 31st August, 2010 in ITA No.1266/2010.
The assessee is a company engaged in management consultancy, implementation of internal controls, system audits, arranging finance from financial institutions and financing and advisory services in the capital markets. It is also doing NBFC business and is a Non-banking Finance Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India and is engaged in financing business sine 1986. During the impugned assessment year it disclosed long-term capital gain of Rs. 43,16,233/- along with short-term capital gain of Rs. 13,21,932/- (STT paid) and STGS of Rs. 19,865/-.
In the case of ACIT vs. Bony Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench that in the absence of any material or evidence to show that the commission is being paid as dividend to the shareholders the disallowance u/s 36 (1)(ii) was not permissible. The Companies Act, 1956 contains the limitation and restrictions in the matter of payment of dividend and such obligation of the company either to pay or not to pay dividend cannot be assumed. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that had this commission not paid would have necessarily being paid as dividend to the shareholders.
We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. According to us, the best evidence regarding cost of construction is from Devika, who constructed the building. In response to summons u/s 131, Devika filed a copy of the agreement, an unsigned valuation report prepared by Shri Charanjit S. Shah and a copy of balance-sheet as on 31.03.2002. The balance-sheet shows capital work-in-progress as on 31.03.2002 at Rs.2,50,30,642/-, half of which amounts to Rs. 1,25,15,372/-.
Issue is covered by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 (SC) wherein it has been held that interest u/s 234B and 234C shall be payable for failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable u/s 115JA/115JB. Therefore, we hold that learned CIT (A) has rightly decided that interest is leviable u/s 234B in respect of income computed u/s 115JB.
The Assessing Officer allowed the depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals at the rate of 15% as against 60% claimed by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at the rate of 60% following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Datacraft India Ltd. – 40 SOT 295 (Mum)(SB).
Honourable ITAT held that income received by a Foreign University under affiliate agreement for providing distance educational courses in India is not taxable as Royalty under the India-USA tax treaty . Accordingly, the taxpayer was not required to withhold taxes while making payments to the foreign university.
Under section 245D of the Act, once the application is admitted, the assessee is required to pay the additional demand on the basis of income disclosed in the application within 35 days of the order of the Commission u/s 245D(1) and in case the demand is not paid within the time allowed interest at prescribed rate is chargeable under 245D(2C). There is no material before us nor there is anything to suggest that in the order of the Settlement Commission that the assessee did not comply with aforesaid order u/s 245D(1) of the Act.
