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.
The reasoning recorded by the assessing officer cannot be said to be totally irrelevant, as the relevancy is in the context of escapement of income for the assessment year and the information may be from any source outside and an information with reference to any earlier year is outside the purview of the record of the current assessment year.
Even a notional loss can be claimed by way of a business loss and as a deductible item in computing the income of the assessee for the year, as it is a computation on notional basis, it is made dependent on the manner of conduct of the assessee in respect of the earlier assessment period and particularly as to the assessee has been following this uniformly over a period of years and the test being when there was a notional gain as to whether it had been offered for tax etc.
