In this appeal it is noticed that the Assessee has in fact after interim order granted by this Court has approached the Revenue and there are certain proposals given by the Revenue to the Assessee and it is submitted by Sri Naganand, learned Senior Counsel that initially the Assessee has deposited Rs.50 crores and as per the order of the Tribunal and further a sum of Rs.175 crores has been deposited after the order passed by this court and a sum of Rs.25 crores will be deposited by 10.02.2013 and modification of interim order to such extent should take care of the interest of both the Assessee and Revenue etc.
It is not in dispute that on the date the assessee deducted the tax, he had to pay/remit the money within seven days from that date and if the amount is actually paid when the credit is given, then the tax is payable within two months. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee did not comply with the legal requirement.
It is clear, Section 85 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority can prefer an appeal within three months. Thereafter, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal, the Commissioner can allow the appeal to be preferred within further period of three months and not beyond that.
Section 115JB, in fact, in no way either denies the benefit given under Section 80-IB or reduces the same. While the appellant-assessee can claim the benefit under Section 80-IB of the Act and it is not denied per se to the appellant-assessee, in the given case, the provisions of Section 115JB may be attracted or may not be attracted depending upon the nature or legal composition of the assessee.
The first assessment order was passed on 1.3.2006. There was a revision of assessment under section 263. Therefore, a fresh assessment order came to be passed on 29.12.2008. However, the order passed in revision was the subject matter before the Tribunal which set aside the order in revision by an order dated 26.6.2009.
Even in the present application Official Liquidator does not state what was the value of these shares as on the date of winding up order was passed or even as on the date of filing of statement of particulars by ex-directors so as to arrive at a conclusion that on account of such non-handing over of shares certificates it has resulted in financial loss to the company (in liquidation) which otherwise would not have occurred.
We dismiss these two appeals as not tenable in view of value of the subject matter in each of the appeal being less than Rupees Ten Lakhs, but reserving liberty to the appellants to revive the appeals, in the event of their success before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the revenue.
An application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be made in vague terms and it cannot be used as a power to conduct a roving enquiry in these proceedings and to ascertain as to whether there is any act of misfeasance on the part of erstwhile directors.
It is the case of the accused that he has preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, Madras and by order dated 27.03.1987, the appeal was allowed, whereunder, the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hubli Division on 16.12.1986 was challenged and the same was set aside. The learned Magistrate has further observed that once the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, has allowed the appeal, there was no need to file the criminal case charging them that they are evading Central Excise Tax. Ex.D.1 is the order produced by the accused in Appeal No. 32/1987 and Ex.D.2 is the order passed in Appeal No. 65/1987. Learned Magistrate has held that the petitioners would not have been liable to pay any duty and therefore the complainant should have known that no case is liable to be filed against them. Learned Magistrate has ultimately observed that false proceedings have been initiated against the accused.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner specifies that what was pending consideration before him was the application filed by the respondent for renewal of exemption certificate issued under section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act. The order passed by the Commissioner further specifies that a notice was issued to the respondent as to why the renewal application cannot be rejected. No notice was issued by the Commissioner to the respondent calling upon them to show cause with regard to violation committed by them to cancel the exemption certificate granted under section 80(G). In the absence of any such notice, the Commissioner committed an illegality in cancelling the exemption certificate granted in favour of the respondent.
