In the present case, the impugned reasons behind the notice dated 28.03.2012, which we have extracted above, does not even carry a whisper that there has been a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Even the order rejecting the objections does not indicate as to what material fact has not been disclosed by the assessee.
If the appellant have paid the service tax they are entitled to take credit of the same. In that view, it cannot be said that by suppressing the fact that the appellants are going to get extra benefit on account suppression. In view of these observations and following the decision in the case of Amman Steel Corpn. (supra), I am of the view that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is not sustainable.
The assessees are availing loans from SNBFCL and passing over the loans to various Self Help Groups (SHGs) working under them. In fact, the loan amounts are not utilized by the assessee trusts. They are utilized by the SHGs working under the trusts. The ultimate payer of the interest is not the assessee trusts, but the SHGs.
For furnishing information required, the petitioner had sought 5 adjournments, as finds place in the impugned order but such information was not furnished. On 8.3.2001, again an adjournment was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the staff was busy in the examination work so time be allowed for furnishing the information. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it appears that such information was required to be furnished by the petitioner, as the staff of the petitioner was busy in the examination work, petitioner institution had sought such time, but it was denied.
It appears from the company’s admission of January 5, 2011 that it asserted that it owed the petitioner a sum of Rs. 26,08,858/- and it had a claim against the petitioner’s associate concern in the sum of Rs. 22,80,646.05. Even if the letter is taken on face value and the veracity of the assertions therein are not questioned, it appears that there is an unequivocal admission by the company of it being indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 3,28,211.95 if the two figures of Rs. 26,08,858/- and Rs. 22,80,646.05 are reconciled. It is the same sentiment which is reflected in the company’s affidavit, at paragraph 11 whereof the figures are repeated and the company has questioned the petitioner’s claim only to the extent of the same exceeding Rs. 26,08,858/-.
i. Provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs on the following basis: a. If sufficient space as per requirement is available in the Government building, then space from the concerned department will be allotted on a permanent basis.
Last aspect of the matter i.e., the argument as to why yet another Form was filed on 05.04.2004. The conduct of respondent no. 3 in this regard is explained by reference to ROC’s letter dated 26.03.2004, whereby they were advised to file a revised duplicate Form by an authorised person to rectify the objections. It is quite possible that having received the said communication, respondent no.3 filed yet another Form on 05.04.2004.
In the present case, we find that the assessing officer was clearly wrong in holding against the assessee by concluding that the assessee had not offered any explanation. This fact has been realized both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is clear that the assessee had offered an explanation.
The instant case relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Explanation in clause (a) to sub-section (10) of section 80-IB was brought in under Finance No.(2) Act of 2004, effective from 1-4-2005. Thus in the absence of any such requirement under section 80-IB(10), as it stood during relevant assessment year 2004-05, it is difficult to accept the case of the revenue that the claim for deduction has to be rejected on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the completion certificates.
The judgment in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. (supra) instructs that the court must be strict in assessing whether all the conditions laid down in Section 163(1)(i) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 carries the same provision in the successor statute) have all been complied with before the inference of the inability of the company to pay its debts based on the legal fiction therein is drawn. The judgment is the specific recognition, in the context of the identical provision in the predecessor statute as Section 434(1)(a) of the current Act, of the general principle that a deeming provision must be strictly construed and all conditions therein must have been adhered to before the legal fiction thereunder can be seen to operate.
