Where assessee surrendered unexplained income voluntarily even after receiving notice u/s 143(2) and the AO had not brought any evidence on record to prove that there was concealment of income, whether levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.
We find no merit in Revenue’s case for disregarding the gift of a house property by the assessee to her spouse prior to the transfer date (of the original asset) for the purpose of reckoning eligibility to exemption u/s.54F of the Act.
There is no restriction on allowing balance of one time incentive in the subsequent year if the provisions are constructed reasonably, liberally and purposive. One has to notice that additional benefit was intended to give impetus to industrialisation and in that direction the assessee deserves to get the benefit in full when there is no restriction in the statute to deny the benefit of balance 50% when the new plant and machinery was acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the immediately preceding year.
Contention of the Assessee- Provision of Sec. 40(a)(ia) shall apply only in respect of the amounts payable at the end of the year and shall not apply on the amounts actually paid by the appellant during the year.
The following disallowances were made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: – 1 Disallowance on account of transportation charges paid to M/s. Lalji Mulji – Rs. 1 ,59,386/- 2 Disallowance on account of export freight charges paid – Rs. 6, 17,830/ – 3 Disallowance on account of export freight paid to Indian agents of foreign shipping companies – Rs. 3,70,062/-
In this case ITAT Mumbai distinguished the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in the case of CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (ITA No.122 of 2013) and held that the issue of ‘paid and payable’ was not subject of reference before the Allahabad High Court.
It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had not incurred the expenditure claimed or that the claim of expenditure was bogus or incorrect. The disallowance of expenditure was attracted due to non-deduction of TDS and it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Further, it is not the case of the assessing officer that the assessee has indulged in accounting of bogus purchases. When the assessee submitted that he could not have effected the sales without making corresponding purchases, the AO has taken the view that the assessee could have effected purchases in the grey market, which conclusion is, in fact, not supported by any material.
In this case AO has made the addition as some of the suppliers of the assessee were declared Hawala dealer by the Sales tax Department. This may be a good reason for making further investigation but the AO did not make any further investigation and merely completed the assessment on suspicion
AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation. In the instant case also, the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of statements given by the parties before the Sales tax department.
