Brief facts of the case are that The assessee received a sum of Rs.90,090/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses from the company M/s Bajaj Consultants Pvt. Ltd., wherein, he is a Director and claimed the same as exempt u/s 17(2) of the Act.
Whether the deposit by the assessee of the employee’s contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) or to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), i.e., as an employer, after the respective due dates, i.e., under the respective Acts, where-under both the employee and the employer are obliged to contribute a sum, reckoned as a percentage of an employee’s salary,
The assessee was given a sum of Rs.25 lakh by Ustad Zakir Hussain (an eminent Tabla Artist) in pursuance of a general Power of Attorney dated 01st March, 2002, for the purpose of making investment with HSBC Bank, portfolio management scheme on his behalf.
The fact of actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the addition was made simply by applying the deeming provisions of section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative as well as by the CIT(A), we do not find any error in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c).
Addition, made solely on the basis of AIR information, especially in the absence of full details of parties and when the professional receipts declared by the assessee far exceeds than the amount mentioned in the AIR information, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of the If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative.
DR strongly supported the order of the AO that prima facie, the basis of addition was the statement of the survyed parties wherein it was accepted that they were providing accommodation transaction, and therefore the entries recorded were sham.
when the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive.
On the issue of share premium money and unsecured loan, the Commissioner held that the order of the Assessing Officer suffers from several defects as the Assessing Officer has not raised any question while recording the statement with respect to the credentials of the applicant companies
From the clarification issued by the Hon’ble High Court, it is clear that until and unless the decision of Marilyn Shipping & Transport (supra) is reversed by the Court, it is binding on all the benches of the Tribunal.
