Applications for stay cannot be treated by the assessing officers or for that matter by appellate authorities as meaningless formalities. Quasi judicial authorities have to apply their mind in an objective and dispassionate manner to the merits of each application for stay. While the interest of the Revenue has to be protected, it is necessary for assessing officers to realize that fairness to the assessee is an intrinsic element of the quasi judicial function conferred upon them by law. Applications for stay must be disposed of at an early date.
Before concluding, we clarify that the observations in the present judgment are confined only to the disposal of the application for stay of the recovery of the demand against the Petitioner and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the assessees, the Petitioner and the Revenue in the pending appeals.
Section 263 of the Act empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to call for and examine the record of any proceeding, if he finds that any order passed therein by the Income Tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. But such order can be passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The show cause notice was issued in respect of matters under Sections 32 AB and 80 HHC of the Act and not in respect of other matters, therefore the show cause notice to be quashed only in respect of matters which were not subject matter of the show cause notice.
In this case high Court has issued guideline to Income Tax Department in respect of the following :- Uploading Of Wrong Or Fictitious Demand Adjustment Of Refund Contrary To The Mandate Of Section 245 Of The Income Tax Act Denial Of Interest Where Assessee Not At Fault Credit Of Tax Deducted At Source (TDS) Non-communication of adjusted Section 143(1) intimations
As regards the second proposed question, the facts are that the respondent! assessee had purchased the land in question sometime in 1994-96. Since then, the respondent! assessee had shown the said land in its balance sheet as a fixed asset. The same had been consistently shown as such by the respondent! assessee in all the years including the assessment year 2006-07.
CIT in the present case had also initiated the proceedings under s. 263 of the Act on the basis of the audit objections. Show-cause notice was issued in the present case for non-deduction of tax at source, out of certain expenses incurred by the assessee and order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act directing the AO to redetermine the income of the assessee by applying a rate other than the rate applied by the AO, being without jurisdiction, is not tenable in law. We find no merit in the plea of the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue that the source of information in the present case was audit objection, but there was independent application of mind by the CIT.
In our humble understanding, the provisions of Section 14A are indeed attracted whether or not the shares are held as stock in trade or as investments, even though the provisions of rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) cannot be invoked in such a case, and even though the provisions of rule 8 D(2)(i) are much narrower in scope than the scope of Section 14 A simplictor.
Respondent took a business decision not to honour its commitment of fulfilling the export entitlement in view of loss being suffered by it. The Assessing officer does not dispute this fact nor does he doubt the genuineness of the claim of the expenditure being for business purpose. In these facts the Tribunal held that respondent assessee has not contravened any provisions of law and thus the forfeiture of bank guarantee was compensatory in nature under Section 37(1) of the Act.
It had held that the assess was in possession of the shares in question and had sold the said shares in course of ordinary transaction of sale of shares at stock exchange and if the broker did not file any evidence since the same were seized by the Revenue Department, there is no fault with the assessee. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the shares in question were allotted to the assessee in the public issue which were held in demat a/c of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. The shares were transferred to Abhipra Capital Ltd. The sale consideration was received by demand draft. Therefore, the transaction in question cannot be said to be fake and is a genuine transaction.
Assessee despite being given more than sufficient opportunity has not been able to explain the discrepancy in stock. No new document or evidence has been brought to the notice of the Bench, nor has the assessee been able to show how the document has been wrongly considered. As such neither on facts nor on law the assessee’s explanation is acceptable,
