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,
important thing to appreciate here is that the provision created is on account of ascertained liability and the same should logically be excluded out of the calculation of book profits Clause (c) of Explanation (1) of Section 115JB. If the argument of the AO is accepted then every creation of provision will lead to dilution/reduction in the value of assets as a general class and therefore would not be deductible from book profit.
In the instant case, the assessee had claimed set off and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to be made against the profits and gains of the business of the succeeding year. The said claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer as the return of income in the assessment year was filed late by the assessee and provisions of section 139(3) were invoked and applied.
The Assessing Officer was of the view that the claim of CENVAT irrecoverable does not fall as an expense under any of the above said sections. The Assessing Officer referred to sub-section of sections 36 and 37 at length and was of the view that the claim of the assessee had to be justified either under section 36(1)(iii)/36(2) (bad debts) or section 37(1) of the Act.
he charging of interest is compensatory in nature. If a tax demand raised by the Assessing Officer is varied by an appellate or revisionary authority, it is the appellate and revisional order and not the assessment order, that would hold the field under the doctrine of merger and, hence, fresh notice of demand is to be issued accordingly. An increase in tax liability would correspondingly reduce the amount refundable and also the interest payable on such reduced refund. Provisions of section 244A(3) clearly cover such a situation. If the contention of the assessee is accepted, it would lead to irrational and absurd consequences, which would make the provisions of section 244A(3) inoperative and redundant. The Assessing Officer merely gave effect to these relevant and clear provisions of the Act.
