In the light of above discussion, we find that the assessee has failed to establish that the substantial part of business of the company is money lending and the loans and advances received to the assessee is the in the ordinary course of money lending business.
It is not in dispute that on the date of maturity, i.e., 22.11.2006, the certificates of gold were redeemed, therefore, 22.11.2006 should be considered as the date of acquisition of the gold for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The authorities below were, therefore, not justified in rejecting the claim of assessee for short term capital gains on redemption of bonds.
No material is produced before us to prove that the AO in the case of person searched was satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to or belong to a person other than the person referred to in sec. 153A. No material is produced before us to show if any satisfaction was recorded by the AO in that case that the seized material belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made u/s 132 of the Act.
If we consider the facts of the case under consideration, we noticed that the A.O. did not reject the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee by invoking section 145(3) of the Act. The assessee raised the ground before the CIT(A) that reference under section 142A to the D.V.O. is without jurisdiction as the A.O. did not reject the books of account.
In the case under consideration, we notice that the requirement of filing form 24Q was new one for the assessee and as being the first year of filing such return, there is no dispute about the fact that the tax has been deducted by the assessee. As held by the I.T.A.T., Mumbai Bench in the case of Royal Metal Printers (P.) Ltd. (supra), that for such technical or venial breach supported by reasonable cause, penalty under section 272A(2) is not leviable.
In the light of the above discussions, the admitted facts of the case under consideration are that during the year under consideration share holding of the company has changed by more than 51% and management and control of the company has been passed on to Pippal family.
In the instant case, the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the transaction entered into between the assessee and Samajwadi Party and no addition had been made in this regard. Instead of cash, if the assessee had taken loan through cheque, it would have taken some time for process in clearing. Since the amount was deposited and withdrawn from bank on the same day for making cash payment to the Nazul Authority, there could be no reason to doubt the bona fide of the assessee.
The mistake on the part of the assessee is that the assessee invested a part amount of sale consideration/ capital gain in residential house instead of gross sale consideration and claimed deduction under section 54F. It is relevant to note that for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act investment of capital gain is the requirement whereas for claiming dedication under section 54F investment of sale consideration is the condition. From the facts of the case it is a clear cut case of bona fide calculation mistake.
Section 11(1) provides subject to the provisions of section 60 to 63, the income which is derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India,
If we consider the facts of the case under consideration, we notice from the admitted facts that the stage of impugned assessment is not an assessment made under section 147/148 of the Act after completion of block assessment but it is a case of original block assessment itself.
