The Income Tax Department shall handover the gold jewellery seized by them from the respondent No.2 during the search operation on 25th November, 1988, to the petitioner. This shall be done upon the petitioner approaching the respondent No.1 on 15th October, 2012, between 11.00 to 12.00 hours noon. Such authority shall after verifying the identity of the petitioner and making necessary records, handover such ornaments to the petitioner.
The Hon’ble CESTAT held that every shortcoming noticed during Audit cannot be held as due to mala fide intention on part of Assessee so as to invoke extended period of limitation and levy the penalty.
In view of our decision in respect of additional ground no.3, other issues raised by the assessee by way of additional grounds and original grounds as per the memo of appeal do not call for any adjudication at this stage, because after deciding the technical aspect, the learned CIT(A) has to decide the entire issues again.
We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, this common issue in the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed.
During the period, when FBT was applicable, appellant considered reimbursements to employees under holiday home scheme to be liable to FBT under section 11 5WB(2)(G), i.e. expenditure for use of hotel, boarding and lodging facilities.
Counsel for the revenue, however, made faint attempt to contend that even though the order of assessment may not specify charging of interest under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, nevertheless if the computation sheet accompanying such an assessment order includes such demand, the notice for demand may still be valid.
These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17.12.1999. By the said judgment, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the present appellants, that is, assessees and confirmed the decision passed by the Revenue Authorities. The appellants herein and one Smt. Urmilaben A. Patel constituted a partnership firm, having shares of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively.
In view of the fact that the enabling conditions of sec.41(1) are not fulfilled in this case, the A.0. had not brought any material on record to indicate that the appellant had obtained any benefit against the above said liabilities and these liabilities are still existing at the end of relevant assessment year in the books of accounts of the appellant, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the Ld. A.R. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,36,76,461/- made by the A. 0. u/s 41(1) is ordered to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.
The decisions by the apex court in the case of Vinay Cement Ltd. (supra) and Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) are admittedly with reference to section 43B and, further, qua the scope of the amendments thereto. The deductibility of the employee’s contribution is not regulated by section 43B.
The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under s. 271(1)((c) started. The Revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him.
