Rebate under section 88E was to be allowed from the tax computed as per provisions of section 115JB to find out whether after set off of rebate under section 88E, any tax liability remained or not. Admittedly the tax liability as per MAT provisions was Rs.7,56,694/- and rebate admissible under section 88E was Rs.26,98,260/-. Therefore, in any view of the matter, no prejudice was caused to the revenue by non-consideration of provisions of section 115JB by Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. CIT’s order cannot be sustained.
A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee why there is a difference in the rate of discount. Assessee replied to the questions raised by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has proceeded to compute the discount by hypothetical calculation to arrive at discount rate for the whole year and then asessee applied on monthly sale basis. This obviously is not permissible in so far as the discount granted by the assessee is not a constant every month. The average rate of discount would be a highly impractical method. In the circumstances, the addition in respect of discount as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) stands deleted.
A perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) clearly shows that the assessee had written off bad debt in the books. Further, it is noticed that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had followed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) Vs. Oman International Bank (refer to supra) on this issue. The finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the bad debt written off in the books has not been disputed by the revenue. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) on this issue is on right footing and does not call for any interference.
it is noticed that the assessment is an ex-parte assessment and also before the ld. CIT(A) there has been no representation. We are of the view that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the ld. AO. It is also noticed that the ld. AR has specifically agreed that there would be no default on the part of assessee in de-novo setting aside assessment. In this situation the issue is restored to the file of AO for denovo assessment after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Girnar Industries (supra) and Tata Tea Limited (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 10B of the Act on account of blending of tea. Similarly, in our view, the industrial units engaged in the very same activity i.e. blending, packing and export of tea in the free trade zone shall also be entitled to enjoy tax exemption under Section 10A of the Act.
It is noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (refer to supra) has held that the appellate authority being the tribunal did have the powers to direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of assessee, though the same has not been made in the original return nor has been claimed in the revised return. In the circumstances, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (refer to supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80GGB of the donations made by the assessee to political parties in respect of Rs.45 lakhs given to Congress party and Rs. 80 lakhs given to BJP.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Talkies (refer to supra) clearly shows that in absence of rejection of books of account maintained by the assessee in respect of cost of construction, no addition on estimate basis can be made. In the present case, a perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the books of account in respect of cost of construction of the lodge, Dhruva Tara has not been rejected. In the circumstances, we are of the view that in view of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Talkies (refer to supra), no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, the addition of Rs. 1 lakh as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stands deleted.
At the outset, what is evident is that a perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the balance sheet as filed before the bank whose finding of the ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged by the assessee. Obviously the finding of ld. CIT(A) and the balance sheet filed with the bank stands good. Once the difference found with the balance sheet filed before the bank authorities and the reconciliation of the same with the books of accounts would have to be done. How the assessee has arrived at the figures as shown in the balance sheet with the bank would have to be reconciled with the bank as maintained by the assessee. For this purpose we are of the view that the issue in this appeal must be restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication. The AO shall give assessee adequate opportunity to reconcile the difference. It is further directed that just because there is a difference addition should not be made if there are positive difference or negative which can be considered also. In the circumstances and with this direction in this appeal this issue is restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity to substantiate its claim.
It is an admitted position that the air freight is paid to the agents on the actual basis and that the bills and air freight documents have been directly issued by the foreign airlines. The agents, while accepting payments for air freight components, have acted merely as agents of the respective airlines and have not received the air freight payments in their own right. In copies of airway bills, the name of these agents is shown as ‘Issuing carrier’s agent, further the agent’s code is given as ‘Agent’s IATA code’. There is thus enough material to demonstrate that the persons having received money for the air freight have received the same in their capacity as ‘issuing carrier’s agent’, i.e., agent of the airline concerned. The air freight payment is thus made to the foreign airlines, though through the agents. Therefore, the payments cannot be said to have been made to a resident company. Accordingly, the provisions of section 194C do not come into play.
In any case, expert advice obtained by the assessee from Vakharia & Associates lacks credibility and just because the assessee’s claim is supported by a chartered accountant’s opinion, this fact per se cannot absolve the assessee from penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the case of CIT Vs Escort Finance Limited (328 ITR 44), Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rejected assessee’s reliance on expert advice to avoid the penalty
