This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (‘ITAT’) in relation to the assessment proceedings concerning the respondent assessee for the assessment years 2001- 02, 2002-03 and 2000-01.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal both were satisfied with regard to identify and creditworthiness of the donors and genuineness of the gifts. Learned Tribunal also satisfied that there is no room to doubt about love and affection of the donors with the assessee as donors were brothers of the assessee. Therefore, gifts could have been given without any occasion and only for the love and affection with the assessee.
We hold that the impugned circular dated 1.1.2013 obligating the concerned authorities to initiate recovery proceedings on the expiry of period as mentioned therein so far as it relates to the situations where appeals with stay applications have been filed, but no stay had been granted and the stay applications had been kept pending for reasons not attributable in any manner whatsoever to the petitioners/assessees and resultantly, no interim relief had been granted, is non est.
A plain reading of the said provisions would reveal that what is required for the purpose of seeking approval thereunder is that the University or other educational institution should exist ‘solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit’. It is nowhere the case and/or finding of the learned CCIT that on account of the said defect in the admission procedure, the Trust ceased to exist solely for educational purposes and/or it existed for the purposes of profit.
If demand of tax raised by the Assessing Authority is more than twice the admitted tax liability, then recovery of difference of tax has to be kept in abeyance during pendency by first appeal before the CIT (Appeals) as per the CBDT instructions.
Detention of the assets has been provided and permitted only so long as there is some outstanding demand of tax and penalty against an assessee or expected liability of such tax or penalty; obviously to safeguard the interest of Revenue for the realization or recovery of such demand of tax, interest and penalty.
In the present case, the assessee had no right to transfer or alienate the machinery in any form, was obliged to re-deliver the equipment upon termination of lease agreement, was not to part with possession and not to make alteration in the equipments with the stipulation that additions would belong to the lessor; and the lessor was entitled to claim depreciation during the lease period. Looking to the explicit terms and stipulations, the findings of the AO about so-called “substantial” transfer of ownership though “apparent” non-transfer of title, in our view, could not have been countenanced and have rightly been reversed by the Appellate Authority.
In the present case, lead and zinc concentrates were received by the assessee in its factory whereupon credit had been taken. The assessee had accounted for the shortage in the raw material found during stock taking by writing off these losses. The percentage of shortage found had been about 0.05% during the subject period. The explanation given by the assessee had been that the loss occurred due to dryage of the moisture content and some likely difference in weighment. The significant aspect of the matter is that it had not been the case of the revenue that any part of the duty paid inputs were diverted from the factory with intent to evade duty.
In the present case, the first show cause notice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the AO on 25.03.2003 and was served on the assessee on 27.03.2003. Obviously, the later period also expired on 30.09.2003 when six months expired from the end of the month in which the action for imposing the penalty was initiated. The order as passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for the penalty under Section 271D on 28.05.2004 was clearly hit by the bar of limitation and has rightly been set aside in the orders impugned.
It will be relevant to record that the primary objection noticed by the assessing authority while serving notice upon the assessee as provided U/s 148 of the Act, 1961 was in regard to dis-allowance of salary of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Managing Director of the assessee company on 30th March, 2002 in cash and Rs.5 Lacs towards advance salary for the assessment year 2002-03 in cash on 10.04.2002 and since it was payment of salary in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-, the above expenses were dis-allowable as provided U/s 40A(3) of the Act, 1961.
