Since grant of registration is a condition precedent for grant of exemption under section 11 and in this case, there is no registration granted under section 12AA in favour of the assessee, no relief or exemption can be granted to the assessee under section 11.
According to section 271A, if the assessee fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by section 44AA and the Rules in any previous year, penalty is leviable. Section 44AA(2)(i) and (ii) provides that every person carrying on business shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as may enable the AO to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
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.
