Allegations leveled by DIT (Inv.) can only raise suspicion in the mind of the AO which is not the sufficient/requirement of law for reopening of assessment. The ‘reasons to believe’ is not synonymous to ‘reason to suspect’. ‘Reason to suspect’ based on an information can trigger an enquiry to find out whether there is any substance or material to substantiate that there is merit in the information adduced by the DIT(Inv.) and thereafter the AO has to take an independent decision to re-open or not. And the AO should not act on dictate of any other authority like in this case DIT(Inv.) because then it would be borrowed satisfaction
The object of Section 2(47)(vi) appears to be to bring within the tax net a de facto transfer of any immovable property. The expression “enabling the enjoyment of” takes colour from the earlier expression “transferring”, so that it is clear that any transaction which enables the enjoyment of immovable property must be enjoyment as a purported owner thereof the idea is to bring within the tax net, transactions, where, through title may not be transferred in law, there is, in substance, a transfer of title in fact
So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. In our opinion, so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the Revenue authorities should be restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271C and 206AA of the Act however the proceedings may continue
So far as, the general tests for manufacture/ production are concerned, we find that manufacturing and processing are not clearly demarcated field. The test of manufacture lies in the answer to the question whether what is processed or produced as end product is commercially known as a different product from the material out of which it was so produced. Therefore, if the product has a different name and identified by the buyers and seller as a different product and is sold as a different product from its raw material one can say that it is a manufactured product
The claim of assessee-company is supported by the documents on record. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly came to the finding that the assessee-company has genuinely entered into purchase and sale of shares and if any, loss have been suffered by the assessee-company, A.O. cannot treat the same as non-genuine due to extraneous considerations or irrelevant reasons in the assessment order
A development agreement was executed which enabled the assessee to utilize the land for construction and for sharing of profits. This right/advantage accrued to the assessee was sought to be taken away from the assessee by way of sale of land. The prospective purchaser as well as the defaulting party (owner) perceived threat of filing suit by developer and consequently paid damages/ compensation to shun the possible legal battle. The intrinsic point with respect to accrual of ‘right to sue’ has to be seen in the light of overriding circumstances as to how the parties have perceived the presence of looming legal battle from their point of view. I t is an admitted position that the defaulting party has made the assessee a confirming party in the sale by virtue of such development agreement and a compensation was paid to avoid litigation. This amply shows the existence of ‘right to sue’ in the perception of the defaulting party.
The conclusions being drawn up as a result of enquiry is a highly subjective exercise and as to what is appropriate conclusion is something on which perceptions vary from person to persons. These variations in the perceptions of the Assessing Officer vis-a- vis that of the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
Notably, section 263(1) of the Act obligates the Commissioner to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing of his order. No doubt the Commissioner is not disentitled to consider a point which is not stated in the notice so issued. However, the obligation to given an opportunity to the assessee of being heard on the point on the basis of which he finds it expedient to treat the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, is definitely cast on the Commissioner, as opined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200