Regarding the addition made u/s 41(1), we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has incorrectly invoked this provision. There is neither any remission nor cessation of the liability. The Assessing Officer has simply added all the credits appearing in the balance sheet which could not be hit by Section 41(1).
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view , the reasons advanced by the learned CIT for refusing to grant continuation of recognition u/s 80G(5) are superfluous and do not stand to legal scrutiny within the meaning of section 80G(5).
So far as addition u/s 40A(3) is concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessee has purchased raw hides/skins for the purposes of manufacturing leather and leather products from local producers either directly or through their agents. Even though the Assessing Officer issued letters to various producers and some of these have come back unserved but it does not prove that the producers of the skin from whom assessee had made purchases are non-existent.
he letter-cum-certific ate issued by the donors were undated, letter given by Shri Habib-ur Rehman was signed by his wife, the details about the bank account were either not filled in the letters sent by the donors or the numbers of bank account given were incorrect, signatures of Smt Badrun-nisan Hanfi as given on the letter and -as signed on the cheque did not match
The undisputed fact is that return filed by the assessee on 31.7.2001 did not contain any information with respect to the amount of gifts received by the assessee in the name of his children. That return was processed under section 143(1) on 1.2.2002 and notice under section 143(2) was also issued on 14.2.2002 and compliance was required to be made on 1.4.2002 which was not made.
15. We have heard both the parties at length and carefully gone through the materials available on record. In the instant case, the controversy to be resolved is whether assessee was a Local Authority for the year under consideration and as such was eligible for exemption of income u/s. 10(20) of the Act or not. Section 10 of the Act deals with the income which are not to be included in computing total income of previous year
16. The term ‘pending’ means ‘undecided1 i.e something which is not concluded. An action is considered as pending from the time of commencement of the proceedings. Thus, a legal proceeding is pending as soon as commenced and until it is concluded. As per Advanced Law Lexicon, third Edition of 2005, page 3521/3522, following are the definitions of the word ‘pending’:
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view inferences drawn by the authorities below are not sustainable in law. The grounds on which the A.O. has added the amount of gift as assessee’s income are summarized by us in para 12. We do not agree that the persons showing income of Rs.80,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum would be persons
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view inferences drawn by the authorities below are not sustainable in law. The grounds on which the A.O. has added the amount of gift as assessee’s income are summarized by us in para 12. We do not agree that the persons showing income of Rs.80,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. The decisions cited at the time of hearing of appeal were duly considered. It is apparent from the record that the assessee company had debited a sum of Rs.2,37,370/ – under the head `travelling expenses’ and claimed the above expenditure as a business expenditure.
