Assessing Officer committed an error in resorting to explanation to section 73 of the Act. The issue before him was whether the income earned by the assessee through sale of shares should be taxed as business income or should be treated as capital gain. Such issue had to be decided on the basis of the question whether the assessee is involved in any business of buying and selling shares or had purchased and sold the shares by way of investment.
Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of difference of balances of Rs.14,03,85,459/-. The Tribunal after considering the explanation of the assessee-respondent and the findings of the CIT(A), recorded the reconciliation statement substantiated by necessary evidence which had been furnished by the respondent assessee. The remand report of the Assessing Officer was also called for here. In absence of any difference in details and reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the addition and the same came to be confirmed by the Tribunal. There being no material to take a contrary view & as both the authorities have concurrently held to delete the said addition, we find on reason to interfere in this question.
Assessee is a limited company. The Government of Gujarat floated Sale Tax Deferment Scheme. For facilitating the industrial units to avail such benefit of the Sale Tax Incentive Scheme in the State, pari passu charge was to be created in favour of the Sales Tax Department, as decided by the Government of Gujarat and as such deferred amount of sales tax was considered as a “deemed loan” and the present respondent acted as a nodal agency for the scheme.
The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. While doing so, he remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for full inquiry and fresh consideration. He had not given any specific directions to consider the issue in particular manner. In any case, the Tribunal further clarified this issue in the impugned order as can be seen from the noted portion of the order itself.
The factual matrix or the case is that the assessee had contracted with landlord to take a premise on lease for opening its branch though no formal agreement with the landlord was entered into. Based on the understanding, the landlord had started the construction of the premises as per the requirement of the assessee. Before the construction was completed the assessee came to know of the proposed construction of overbridge over the said property. The assessee was of the view that overbridge will cause hindrance to conduct the business and services.
In case of Ratanlall Murarka and others (supra), as already noted, Kerala High Court did hold that under section 179 of the Act not only the tax dues but also interest can be recovered from the director of a public company. This was on the basis that according to the Court, the company was liable for interest under section 220(2) of the Act.
Issue pertains to deduction claim by the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act on development of a housing project. Revenue, however, holds a belief that the respondent-assessee had not developed the housing project on the ground that the land was not owned by the assessee. The Tribunal, however, held that as per the development agreement, the assessee had to incur and bear all expenses for development of the land. The assessee had the right to allot possession of the constructed units to the members of the housing project after developing the housing project. The Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Radhe Developers [2012] 341 ITR 403 in which this Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
The Department appears to have sent a proposal to the Finance Department which had approved it on 4th September 2012 and after the same was received back alongwith necessary papers and orders permitting the Office of the Government Pleader to file Tax Appeal, it appears that the Tax Appeal which was to be filed on or before 10th November 2009, came to be filed after a huge delay of 1226 days on 27th November 2012. What is stated for explaining such delay is that due to Government administrative mechanism, within the statutory time period, tax appeal could not be filed. In absence of any specific details and explanation, this explanation in general terms does not satisfy us.
As it appears from the portion highlighted by us, the question involved in that matter regarding the validity of the State Laws included in the Ninth Schedule cannot have any application to the facts of the present case. Regarding constituent power under Article 368, we have already relied upon the observations of the nine-bench-judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of I.R. Coelho [dead] by L.Rs. v. State of T.N. (supra) holding that by addition of the words ‘constituent power’ in Article 368, the amending body, namely, Parliament does not become the original Constituent Assembly. We, thus, find that the above decision relied upon by Mr. Champaneri does not help his client in any way.
In case of Ashok Taksali (supra), the Rajasthan High Court came across a similar question. The Bench was of the opinion that once a salary income of the block year has been taxed and such tax has been deducted at source, there is no question of holding that the income of the assessee was undisclosed income of the block period. It was observed as under:-
