The Income Tax Department shall handover the gold jewellery seized by them from the respondent No.2 during the search operation on 25th November, 1988, to the petitioner. This shall be done upon the petitioner approaching the respondent No.1 on 15th October, 2012, between 11.00 to 12.00 hours noon. Such authority shall after verifying the identity of the petitioner and making necessary records, handover such ornaments to the petitioner.
We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, this common issue in the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed.
Counsel for the revenue, however, made faint attempt to contend that even though the order of assessment may not specify charging of interest under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, nevertheless if the computation sheet accompanying such an assessment order includes such demand, the notice for demand may still be valid.
These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17.12.1999. By the said judgment, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the present appellants, that is, assessees and confirmed the decision passed by the Revenue Authorities. The appellants herein and one Smt. Urmilaben A. Patel constituted a partnership firm, having shares of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively.
Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that said decision of this Court was not carried in appeal on the ground that it involved tax effect lower than what is prescribed by the CBDT in circular dated 9.2.2011 permitting the Revenue to carry such appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to point out any factual distinction between the two cases.
All Tax Appeals are allowed. Decisions of the Tribunal under challenge are reversed. In the earlier portion of the judgment, we had recorded that the Tribunal in all cases had proceeded only on this short basis without addressing other issues. We, therefore, place all these matters back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration of other issues, if any, regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. All appeals are disposed of accordingly.
The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The revenue authorities had imposed penalty on the ground that deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was wrongly claimed. The Tribunal however, deleted such penalty. The Tribunal noted that tax liability against the assessee was confirmed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228. The Tribunal noted that such decision was not available when the assessee filed the return. On such basis, the Tribunal was prompted to delete the penalty.
Search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132. Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity.
Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a rule making power of the Government. Sub-section (1) of section 37 provides that the Central Government may make rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 37 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for various issues contained in clauses (i) to (xxviii) of the said sub-section. Clause (xx) which is relevant for our purpose reads as under:
Incentive scheme was framed as a part of Government’s initiative to encourage modernization of existing industries in under-developed areas. The main purpose of the scheme was to accelerate the industrial development and to disperse industries to under-developed areas as well as to provide additional employment.
