we are of the view that the principle of mutuality is fully applicable and the interest earned on the fixed deposits with the bank and other institutions is fully covered within the parameters of mutuality. We fully endorse the view taken by CIT(A) in the case of Hill Properties Ltd. ITA No. 6223, 6249/Mum/09, that the principle of mutuality cannot be destroyed simply because the funds were not parked with members but with third parties who are not members of the Society.
The matter came up in appeal before ITAT in the assessee’s own case and other cases in ITAs No. 453,454,456/M/2010 & 458 & 455/M/2010. During the continuance of these appeals, Hon’ble Bombay High Court came up with the decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s DCIT, reported in 328 ITR 81 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the operation of Rule 8D shall only be from 2008-09 onwards, and not being retrospective.
Coming to the issue as to whether the AADT with Malasia would disentitle the deduction we agree with the submissions of the assessee that the whole world income is taxable in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of the Act and when it is done so, section 90(2) mandates that the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee.
On a difference of opinion among the two Members of the Tribunal, the ld.Third Member was called upon to answer two questions on which there was difference of opinion among the two members who framed the questions and the ld.Third Member in a well considered order, answered the reference by giving sound and valid reasons agreeing with the views of the ld. Judicial Member. Thus, the majority view was in favour of the assessee.
These appeals were originally posted for hearing on 09.11.2011 (vide AD card) and at the request of the assessee it was adjourned from time to time and finally posted for hearing on 04.04.2012 on which date none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Though the assessee has raised several grounds no material, whatsoever, was filed to contradict the findings of the learned CIT(A). Under these circumstances, applying the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 we dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. Assessee is at liberty to move appropriate application for recall of the order, if permissible under the law.
Instruction No.1979 dated 27.3.2000, provided that no appeal would be filed before Tribunal if the tax effect was less than Rs.1.00 lacs, and thereafter Instruction dated 17.7.2003 clarified that monetary limit/tax effect mentioned in the Circular has to be read as revenue effect which would mean tax, interest, penalty. Further, vide circular dated 24.10.2005 CBDT enhanced monetary limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal to Rs.2.00 lacs and vide Instruction No.16.7.2007 it was clarified that the tax effect would mean tax only and no interest. CBDT by subsequent Instruction No.5 of 2008 dated 15.5.2008 clarified that the tax effect would also mean notional tax effect in cases of losses.
The question now is as to whether to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Special bench in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) which has taken the view that Amendment by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act is prospective and not retrospective from 1.4.2005 or the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court taking a contrary view.
Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee paid a sum of Rs.9,54,684/- to a foreign bank without deduction of tax at source. In the audit report, it was mentioned that it was a usance interest paid under the letter of credit and hence not liable for any deduction of tax at source. In support of its case, the assessee relied on the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation vs. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 169 (Rajkot) by contending that the interest paid to bank related to the purchases and hence should be considered as part of purchase price.
Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that similar action was taken by the AO for the assessment year 2003-0-4 also, which was reversed in the first appeal. He placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal on 13-08-2009 in ITA No.4960/Mum/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04 by which the Revenue’s appeal, under similar circumstances, came to be dismissed. A copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order of the Tribunal for the earlier year, was also placed on record by which the Revenue’s appeal has been dismissed. The ld. DR was fair enough to concede that the facts and circumstances of the instant year are similar to those for the assessment year 2003-04. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue.
