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.
Tribunal relying on its decision in case of Radhe Developers v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) held that respondent assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the housing project development though the assessee may not be the owner of the land.
Obviously therefore, the Assessing Officer of the searched person during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, could not have arrived at the satisfaction that the income was that of the present assessee and not the persons originally searched.
Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal without adverting to the merits. Even on the day on which the hearing is adjourned, the appellant chose not to appear in person or through an authorised representative. It is incumbent upon the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent and afterwards if the appellant appears and satisfy the Tribunal, sufficient cause for its non-appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal can set aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal. However, reliance of the Tribunal on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is erroneous and, therefore, requires to be set aside. In the instant case, it can be noted from the letters addressed by the present appellant to the Tribunal that it was awaiting transfer of both the appeals of 1998-99 and 1999-2000 since CIT (Appeals) had relied upon such orders of earlier years.
