It cannot be denied that the respondent is estopped from raising any plea against the averments made in the counter and the confirmation of balance, for which supporting documents have been produced. The respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the supporting documents. In addition to the admission made by the respondent, the petitioner has produced various invoices-cum-delivery chalan for the supply of goods and materials to the respondent on various dates as stated in the petition and also produced statement of outstanding bills.
As far as the present case is concerned, except for stating that they had to make payments to the suppliers and the labours, there is hardly any material available on record to show any justification for receipt of cash over and above Rs. 20,000/- during the course of the year. The assessee admits that they are in the line of business of construction where day in and day out cash payments are made to labourers and to suppliers.
It is an admitted case that the assessee did not file any objection to the said revision and on the other hand, the disallowance of the gratuity provision was accepted by the assessee. Therefore, the levy of additional tax is only a consequential event to the prima facie adjustment, which was carried out through the order passed under Section 154. The Assessing Authority had rightly levied the additional tax by his order under Section 154.
Though the Assessing Officer invoked penalty under Section 27(1)(c) of the Act and stated that the assessee failed to furnish complete details from bank statement, on going through the materials placed before this Court, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has subsequently found that the said deposit was made for the period commencing from 01.04.2004 to 29.03.2005.
In our considered view, in the light of the relationship between the assessee and her father-in-law, the Tribunal has rightly held that the genuineness of the transaction is not disputed, in which, the amount has been paid by the father-in-law for purchase of property and the source had also been disclosed during the assessment proceedings. If there was a genuine and bonafide transaction and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty.
Mere characterisation of an account as a NPA would not by itself be sufficient to say that there is uncertainty as regards realizability of income or interest income thereon. Accrual of interest is a matter of fact to be decided separately for each case on the basis of examination of the facts and circumstances. The same would require an assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. Only by assessment of facts and circumstances, the Authority could arrive at a decision whether there is uncertainity of the interest accrued on NPA. Only when there is uncertainity of realizability of income or interest income then it is not chargeable to tax.
When the specific provision under Section 80HHE is concerned about technical services rendered in connection with software development, we do not approve of the line of reasoning of the Tribunal. One cannot read any such choice available to the assessee for claiming deduction either under Section 80-O or under Section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act. In the face of the finding of the Officer as to the nature of technical services rendered as in connection with the development of production of computer software as spoken to by the company’s Director, we do not find any good ground to accept the assessee’s plea. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal stands set aside and these appeals, filed by the revenue, stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
As far as the present case is concerned, none of the circumstances were narrated by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the Appellate Authority concerned in support of the contention that the claim for allowance should not be disallowed. The mere circumstance, that the amount had been remitted to the account of the payee, would not be a good ground to accept the case of the assessee that Section 40A(3) of the Act will not applied to the case.
We find that the findings of the Tribunal on the assessment was not on the ground of treating the claim as not bona fide. We find that the assessment on the consumption of bottles made on the ground of alleged non-existence of two firms was rejected by the Tribunal by rendering a finding that the suppliers were very much in existence. On the 2% addition made to the bottles sent direct to the factory without entering into the books of accounts and on the price difference,
The very same issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.273 of 2012 dated 12.09.2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Shriram Properties & Constructions (Chennai) Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai-17) wherein one of us was a member (Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu, J). In that case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act holding that the assessee had not filed the revised return of income to offer the amount as income for the purpose of assessment
