The present tax appeals have been field by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat -II under sec. 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to raise the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed a substantial error of law in reducing the penalty on the respondent from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 20 lakhs ?” 2. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. R.
The petitioners ‘Kutch Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a Voluntary Association of Industrial Units, and other Industrial Units operating in the Kutch District of State of Gujarat, have challenged the Notifications issued by respondent No. 1 bearing No. 16/2008-C.E dated 27.3.2008 as well as Notification No. 33/2008-C.E dated 10.6.2008 on the ground that they have effect of depriving the petitioners and other similarly situated industries and industrial units, set up pursuant to the Notification No. 39/2001-C.E dated 31.7.2001, providing for the exemption from payment of excise duty for five years from the date of commencement of commercial production, to the newly set up industrial units with specific minimum investments as an incentive to set up new industries in Kutch region after the devastating earthquake.
In the instant case, the assessee had claimed the value of property as per the registered valuer’s report. Therefore, under clause (a) of section 55A, the Assessing Officer was required to form an opinion that the value claimed by the assessee as per the registered valuer’s report was less than the fair market value. The estimated value proposed by the DVO
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.
