It is not in dispute that the show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to avail undue CENVAT credit. The assessee did not choose to contest the demand on the ground of limitation, thereby virtually accepting the allegation of suppression. Their only grievance is against the penalty. The grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation are Indisputably identical to the grounds for invoking the section 11 AC. If that be so, where the demand has not been contested on the ground of limitation, it is not open to the assessee to oppose the section 11 AC penalty. In other words, where mens rea stands accepted in relation to the demand of duty, it has to be accepted by the assessee vis-a-vis the proposal for imposition of penalty under section 11AC. In the result, the penalty is unquestionable in this case.
CIT Vs. Gita Duggal – Section 54/54F uses the expression a residential house. The expression used is not a residential unit. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use.
The appeal is, however, time barred by 24 days. The Assessing Officer has moved a petition seeking condonation of this delay. Having perused the said petition, and having heard rival contentions on the same, we are inclined to condone the delay as the delay seems to have been explained by a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits.
A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has gone on the basis of the documents submitted by the assessee before the AO and has held that in the light of those documents, it can be said that the assessee has established the identity of the parties. It has further been observed that the report of the investigation wing cannot conclusively prove that the assessee’s own monies were brought back in the form of share application money. As noted in the earlier paragraph, it is not the burden of the AO to prove that connection.
When the order was passed by the Tribunal on 09.10.2000, the Revenue had only remedy of seeking reference in terms of the then Section 35-G of the Act from the Tribunal. If the Tribunal does not refer the questions of law for the opinion of this Court, the aggrieved party could invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 35-H of the Act. It was in these terms, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the Revenue against the order dated 09.10.2000 passed by the Tribunal. The opinion rendered by the High Court, on such reference sought by the Revenue, is binding on the authorities under the Act. The Tribunal is to give effect to the order passed by this Court. We find that the appellant has sought to confuse the provisions then existing and after amendment with effect from 14.5.2003 substituting Section 35-G by Section 144 of the Finance Act, 2003.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a director in M/s. Veen Promoters Pvt. Ltd. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Act on 14.7.2009 in the case of M/s. Veen Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 31.7.2009 declaring total income
Expenditure incurred by the assessee is not creating any enduring benefit of an asset but is rather helping the assessee in augmenting its sales and resultantly its profit. Even if it is presumed that the building of brand image of Nirvana is giving advantage of enduring benefit to the assessee, still it would be on revenue account as there is no creation of a tangible or intangible asset of enduring nature to the assessee.
It is not in dispute that the aforesaid two amounts have been deposited by the two partners in their capital account. The partners are income tax payee. They have explained the source as having received gift from various persons, who have also filed their Income Tax Returns and have been assessed accordingly. Merely because, the donors are weavers and they own only one loom would not make any difference. They have filed their Income Tax Returns and have also filed the return under the Gift Tax Act. They have paid the gift tax also. Assessment under the Gift Tax Act has also been made, though the assessments made were summary in nature. In the case of Anil Rice Mills (supra), this Court has held that the assessee can not be asked to prove the source of source or the origin of origin.
The decision in J.K. Kashyap v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 302 ITR 255 is an authority for the proposition that even when an assessee becomes entitled to an undefined and undivided share in a property, through an agreement, which he later relinquishes, the gain has to be assessed as income from capital gain, and not as income from other sources.
In addition to the regular cricket matches, the assessee is conducting commercially oriented matches like Indian Premier League (IPL). Players of IPL teams are selected by sponsors to play under their brand names. Players are selected through auctions. Players choose that sponsor which offers the highest amount of money. IPL Matches are played with hype and celebration so as to create more and more revenue out of sale of telecast rights. All these activities when read together, one has to come to a finding that the entire activities of the Association is poised towards generating huge amount of income through the game of cricket.
