Cross appeals filed by the assessee, a State Govt. undertaking, and the department were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the parties had not obtained the approval of the Committee on Disputes (“COD”). The assessee as well as the department challenged the decision of the Tribunal. HELD, reversing the decision of the Tribunal:
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)
In the present case, admittedly the Assessment Year being 1988-89 and the search having taken place on 03.07.1987 the return of income was not due before 31.07.1988. Therefore, whether the income represented by the value of the asset was shown in the return of income or not became irrelevant once a declaration had been made about such income having not been disclosed
the Court direct the department to accept the return Forms which are submitted by the taxpayers, subject to a genuine difficulty. After acceptance of those return Forms, on scrutiny if it is found by the concerned officer that there is no genuine difficulty on the part of the taxpayer in giving the details required in various columns, those Forms may finally be treated as not filed as required, and they will be subject to final decision taken by the concerned officer. However, it is also made clear that if under the rules no Annexures are required to be attached then no Annexures shall be attached to the return Form.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds. The three orders namely; (1) the order dated October 6, 1992 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda, declining to accept the claim of the petitioner for interest on refund on the ground that it is not admissible under Sections 243(1)(b), 244(1A) and 214(2) of the Act,
Even if the ground about contravention of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act is validly taken by the respondent, the same would have a bearing only at the point of time of the assessment of the petitioner-trust and would not be a material consideration in so far as granting of approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act is concerned.
The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal’s order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal.
In our opinion, the view which we are taking is also fortified by the proviso to s. 119 of the Act which specifically provides that the Board cannot issue instructions to the IT authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner as well as not to interfere with the discretion of the CIT(A) in exercise of his appellate functions.
It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that two courses were open to the assessee, one being to claim depreciation and the other being forgo the depreciation and any course which is beneficial to the assessee could be adopted and the incidence of tax can be legitimately reduced
