In the absence of any material to show that said amount was sent by the assessee’s mother and brothers from Singapore, the claim of the assessee does not merit any consideration. Thus the amount of Rs. 78 lakhs treated as unexplained investment under section 69 and assessable as undisclosed income for the block period stands confirmed.
Going by the admitted facts herein, as noticed in the assessment order that the assessee was also subjected to search on 19.1.1996 and the case of the assessee falling under Section 158BC, the relevant provision for limitation would be only as per Section 158BE(1)(a). That being the case, the file noting has no significance for the purpose of working out the limitation. Thus, on the search conducted on 19.1.1996 the notice of assessment was issued on 20.9.1996.
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal the third respondent herein, is requested to dispose of the waiver/stay applications filed by the petitioner as early as possible, preferably, on or before 1.2.2013. The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps till the waiver/stay applications of the petitioner are disposed of by the Tribunal.
Considering the low tax effect in the case on hand and the substantial questions of law of general importance are not established, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Despite filing of the stay application, the direction for recovery makes it mandatory for the authority to recover the amount within a period of 30 days after the filing of the appeal even if there is a stay application pending and has not been disposed of. The plea taken is that the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act does not specify any time limit. In such view of the matter, it is pleaded that the circular overreaches the provisions.
As regards investment made in thandal business, there are no materials seized at the time of search of the assessee’s premises, to make this as a subject matter of block assessment. When the revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee had been doing the business along with two others, there was no justifiable ground to assess Rs. 27 lakhs at the hands of the assessee.
The instant case relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Explanation in clause (a) to sub-section (10) of section 80-IB was brought in under Finance No.(2) Act of 2004, effective from 1-4-2005. Thus in the absence of any such requirement under section 80-IB(10), as it stood during relevant assessment year 2004-05, it is difficult to accept the case of the revenue that the claim for deduction has to be rejected on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the completion certificates.
There is no doubt that the authority concerned, who issues the warrant for searches and seizure, ought to have the necessary materials before him to have a reason to believe that an order for search and seizure is warranted. However, it is clear that if certain materials are available before the authority concerned to arrive at his conclusion, then it is not for this Court to examine as to whether there were sufficient materials or grounds to arrive at such a conclusion.
A reading of second proviso to section 10B of the Act thus clearly shows what is contemplated as deemed profits and gains derived from the export of articles or things for the purpose of Section 10B(1) of the Act. Thus, whenever local sales of articles or things does not exceed 25% of the total sale, then the profits and gains derived from the such domestic sales are considered as deemed profits and gains derived from the export of articles or things qualifying for deduction.
When the company had taken lands on 90 years lease with the objects of constructing IT company with all its infrastructural facilities, the same was for the purpose of establishing and providing the amenities required to run, maintain, manage or administer computer centers for manufacturing or processing software packages and/or hardware materials and components required for computer industry, to exploit it as a business proposition. In the facts of these clauses, the order of the Tribunal is to be confirmed, thereby, holding that the lease rentals are assessable as business income only.
