The discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer while rejecting the book results have not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has observed that although the quantity of cotton seed, mustard and groundnut crushed during the previous year were shown separately but the yield of oil and oil cakes have been given in consolidated form at 13.02 per cent and 83.91 per cent respectively. Further, the sales of oil and oil cakes have been shown in the manufacturing account in consolidated form although there was a wide variation in the market price of these products.
The Assessing Officer is not competent to make addition to the book profit for amount of interest, as the net profit had already been computed as per provisions of the Companies Act. The said amount does not fall under section 115JB(2) and Explanation 1 thereunder. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue on the said issue was liable to be dismissed.
The issue raised vide present grounds of appeal is in relation to the equity shares to be issued to the employees as sweat equity. The assessee vide special resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting held on 31.3.2006 had allotted 394692 number of equity shares @ Rs. 106.26 amounting to Rs.4.19 crores to its employees as sweat equity. List of the allottees was before the Board during the course of extraordinary general meeting and the finding of the CIT (Appeals) is that the said shares were allotted immediately thereafter.
In the facts of the present case, the assessee had deducted tax at source out of payments made to contractor totalling Rs. 1,21,75,828 which was deposited on 8-7-2008. The due date for filing return of income of the assessee was 30-9-2008. Following the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations (supra) and various Benches of the Tribunal it is held that once the tax has been deducted and deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing return of income, there is no merit in disallowing the expenditure relatable to such tax deducted at source. The assessee succeeds on both the counts. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has to be directed to allow the claim of expenditure of Rs. 1,01,33,953.
However, we would like to take this opportunity to bring to the notice of CBDT that after the procedure of Central processing of returns, many issues have come before various forums where unnecessary demands have been raised due to non-grant of TDS, wrong computation of income, adjustment of the previous year demand which have already been deleted by the jurisdictional assessing officer. Therefore, we would like to urge the CBDT to take up this matter urgently and establish proper coordination between the assessing authority and Central Processing Authority so that these problems are immediately solved and unnecessary litigation can be avoided. Copy of this order should be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh and Chairman of CBDT for necessary action.
Approval u/s. 80G once granted shall continue to be valid in perpetuity unless and until a show-cause notice is issued by the concerned CIT showing his intention to withdraw already granted such approval.
Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust v. CIT From the proviso attached to the section 293C of the Act, it is crystal clear that even if any Income-tax Authority wants to withdraw approval, he shall issue a show-cause notice against the proposed withdrawal to the assessee concerned and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall withdraw approval after recording reasons for doing so.
Assessee submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra) and compute the deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC licenses in this case as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. We find substance in the above submissions of Shri Sudhir Sehgal and, therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue to Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra). The Assessing Officer should give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeal is allowed.
In the instant case, the assessee has already filed requisite details before the Assessing Officer and further detail was to be filed before the Assessing Officer and the latter refused to accept the same. Therefore, the assessee was compelled to file details by way of speed post. Further, new evidence filed by the assessee is from the Government agency and the same is essential for disposal of the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the new evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety and after recording reasons admitted the new evidences. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the admission of the new evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the interest of the quasi-judicial proceedings is to render justice and not to deny justice by declining to admit new evidence. The circumstances of the case duly justify admission of the new evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals).
It is an admitted fact that the amount of tax deducted at source by the assessee (Person Responsible) was paid within the limit under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was only a technical and venial breach to the provisions contained in Rule 31A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 requiring the assessee to submit quarterly returns statement of Tax Deducted at Source which were required to be filed on due date as per section 200(3) of the I.T. Act. As regards the delay in submitting TDS returns, it was explained by the assessee that due to non-furnishing of PAN numbers, the TDS certificate could not be filed in time,
