As far as the invocation of extended period is concerned tribunal observed that improper credit taken which was detected by the department officers only. At no stage of appellant approached the department for any guidance that there was any confusion in admissibility of credit on the impugned services.
For the purpose of levy, assets are classified as two categories one as productive and other as non productive. Under the provisions of amended Act, tax is levied only on non productive assets such as residential house, urban land, jewellery, bullion, motor car etc. In the case in hand, industrial plots are being utilized as productive assets.
We find that it is not in dispute that the undisclosed bank account which was detected by the department contains transfer entries to other 5 undisclosed bank accounts maintained by the assessee. In view of this fact the Tribunal concluded that the subsequent disclosure of the assessee of existence of the said 5 bank accounts cannot be held as voluntary.
The Revenue has not brought any positive material on record to show that the assessee actually incurred any expenses in relation to earning of exempt income. In our considered view, before making disallowance under section 14A, it was imperative on the part of the Revenue
Simply because outstanding liability at the end of the year is comparatively higher, considering the amount of expenditure incurred during the year, does not empower the AO to disallow the actual outstanding liability unless it is found that the liability shown was not genuine.
In our considered view, even if the assessee failed to put-in appearance, it is the duty of the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of VODAFONE ESSAR LTD Vs. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL–II & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7028/2010 order dated 02.12.2010.
It was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to examine the books of accounts with the related evidences and documents and thereafter should have arrived at a decision. Without verification of books of accounts produced before him and bringing any material on record, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee as an afterthought.
The contention of the assessee is that he has shown income from truck under section 44AE of Rs. 2,01,000/- which includes income of Rs.1,07,890/- from M/s. Chandan Carriers, and therefore, no separate addition of Rs.1,07,890/- is warranted. None of the lower authorities has verified this contention of the assessee.
The assessee has filed its return of income on 31-12-2006 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee had claimed deduction at Rs. 1,91,400/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the income tax act. The Point of issue was the assessee has carried out the construction in violation of the original plan passed by AUDA and therefore violated the condition of section 80IB(10).
In his first fold of submission, he contended that assessee has sufficient interest free funds available which were used for the purpose of giving interest free advances, therefore, ld. Assessing Officer ought to have not disallowed any amount out of the interest expenses claimed on the borrowed funds.
