The ITAT in the impugned order noted that the said document “does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee nor the address and location of the property is mentioned therein nor such property has been located by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The AO has also not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the loose paper relied upon by him to make the addition, which is exclusively made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork. Even no corroborative material has brought on record by the AO to substantiate the addition nor the CIT(A) has called for any remand report seeking corroborative evidence, if any.” In the considered view of the Court, the addition of Rs. 49 lakhs to the returned income of the Assessee was based on surmises and conjectures and that too on the basis of a single document without making any further enquiry. No attempt was made by the AO to find out if in fact it constituted the construction expenses of any project of the aforementioned company of which the Assessee was a director
The ITAT in the impugned order noted that the document was “silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question nor does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures.” In the considered view of the Court, the addition of Rs.80,50,000 merely on the basis of a single document without making any further enquiry was not justified. No attempt was made by the AO to find out if in fact it constituted estimates relating the construction of project of Omaxe Ltd
A plain reading of Section 92A makes the legal position quite clear. The basic rule for treating the enterprises as associated enterprises is set out in Section 92A(1). The illustrations in which basic rule finds application are set out in Section 92A(2). Section 92A(1) lays down the basic rule that in order to be treated as associated enterprise one enterprise, in relation to another enterprise, participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, “in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise” or when “one or more persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in its management or control or capital, are the same persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise” . Section 92(A)(2) only provides illustrations of the cases in which such an enterprise participates in management, capital or control of another enterprise. In other words, what Section 92A (1) decides is the principle on the basis of which one has to examine whether or not two or more enterprise are associated enterprise or not.
In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few
We are extremely unhappy with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the special leave petition but make no other comment. The concerned authorities need to wake up.
When it was sent by R.P.A.D. to the address, it was returned by the postal authorities with the remark, that the addressee refused to accept the packet. That is why it is returned. Thus, the presumption that when the addressee whose address is set out on the envelope had an occasion to notice and peruse the packet, meant for him, but he refuses to accept it, then, that is deemed to be served. The addressee in this case is correctly described. There is no dispute about his identity. Even his address is correct. It is at that address the packet is carried and by the concerned postal authority. The duly authorised person carrying the packet reached the address. On noticing the addressee, he serves it, but the addressee after having perused the packet refused to accept it. It is in these circumstances, the postal remark that the concerned person has refused to accept; hence, returned to the sender denotes good and valid service.
Even though it is a debatable issue but as Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico (P) Ltd. (supra) had taken a view that it is capital expenditure which was subsequently followed by Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. V. CIT (supra) and the registered office of the respondent assessee being in the State of Gujarat, the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court was binding. (See Taylor Instrument Com.(India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 232 ITR 771, Commissioner of Gift Tax v. J.K. Jain (1998) 230 ITR 839, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunil Kumar (1995) 212 ITR 238, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. – (1994) 206 ITR 727, Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (1993) 203 ITR 54, Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.C. Joshi & B.C. Joshi (1993) 202 ITR 1017 and Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466). Therefore, so far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be said that the issue was a debatable one
The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. in his statement had stated that there were no sales / purchases but the transactions were only accommodation bills not involving any transactions. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had disputed the correctness of the above statement and admittedly the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross examine the concerned Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. who had made the above statement. The appellate authority had sought remand report and even at that stage the genuineness of the statement has not been established by allowing cross examination of the person whose statement was relied upon by the revenue
It is also a settled legal proposition that if no evidence is given by
the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found
against him. Therefore, onus is always on a person who asserts a
proposition or fact, which is not self evident, The onus, as a
determining factor of the whole case can only arise if the Tribunal,
which is vested with the authority to determine, finally all questions
of fact, finds the evidence pro & con, so evenly balanced that it can
come to no conclusion, then, the onus will determine the matter
Thus, these amounts when received as advance under an Agreement to Sale of a capital asset are invested in specified bonds the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act is available. Moreover, on almost identical facts, this Court in Parveen P. Bharucha Vs. DCIT, 348 ITR 325, held that the earnest money received on sale of asset, when invested in specified bonds under Section 54EC of the Act, is entitled to the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act. This was in the context of reopening of an assessment and reliance was placed upon CBDT Circular No. 359 dated 10th May, 1983 in the context of Section 54E of the Act