The difference between a write off of a debt as irrecoverable and a provision against the same on account of or for it being bad and doubtful for recovery, is not technical but factual and, further, real and not imaginary.This is more so in view of the express provision of law by way of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii), brought on statute by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01-04-1989.
We find that there is no reason whatsoever set out in the show cause notice as to why the Commissioner was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Unless the Commissioner specifically sets out such reasons in the show cause notice, and hears the assessee on the same, it is not open to him to exercise his revision powers under section 263 of the Act.
On the facts of the present case, we have noted that there is no finding by any of the authorities below that services are rendered to non-members. There is a reference to the services rendered to the outsiders in the orders of the authorities below, but it is in the context of analysis of judicial precedents, and, therefore, nothing turns on that. As long as services are rendered to the members, even for a remuneration, the same will be covered by the principles of mutuality. As far the allegation that members have deducted at source from payments to the assessee and for this reason, the receipt is to be taken as taxable receipt, it is only elementary that conduct on the part of the person making payment cannot determine character of receipt in the hand of recipient.
The assessee’s prime grievance is the non-examination by the Assessing Officer of the material adduced before Commissioner (Appeals) for the first time. At the same time, there has been, without doubt, a clear violation of rule 46A. The question of consideration of the additional evidence/s by the Commissioner (Appeals) comes only subsequent to first qualifying for admission in terms of rule 46A, which is mandatory in nature.
No doubt the provisions of section 153 requires that assessment order shall not be passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. This is applicable to this case. There is no requirement that service must be effected before the expiry date but there must be evidences to show that assessment order was indeed passed before the limitation.
Learned counsel was specifically asked whether he is in a position to produce, or has produced at any stage, evidences for services having been rendered by the persons, who have been paid the commission. While learned Counsel referred to the fact that these incomes are duly disclosed in the hands of the recipient that the same commission was allowed deduction in the other years, he was not in a position to produce any evidence for services rendered, nor such evidence was produced before the authorities below.
Even though the privity of contract may be between the assessee (whose obligation it is for the transportation of goods) and the transporter, rather, irrespective of whether the contract is between the assessee and the transporter or the principal and the transporter – the payment in either case being only in pursuance to a contract; the liability under section 194C being on the person responsible for making the payment
After going through the order of CIT(A), We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
No doubt in a normal situation, so far as matters capable of two views being taken will be outside the ambit of section 154. However, right now, we are dealing with interpretation of section 10(10C) and so far as this interpretation is concerned, law laid down by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is that an interpretation in favour of the assessee is to be adopted.
At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee by referring to the paper book at page nos.9 to 31 which contain copies of Kishanlal M.Dayama’s I.T.Return Ack., P&L A/c Capital A/c, Balance Sheet and Banker’s Certificate, Copies of Rajesh Kaishchand Vyasa’s I.T.Return Ack; Brokerage A/c, Interest A/c., Capital A/c, Balance Sheet and PAN Card, Banker’s Certificate
