The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry to set up such highly capital intensive entertainment centers. This being the case, it is difficult to accept Mr. Narasimha’s argument that it is only the immediate object and not the larger object which must be kept in mind in that the subsidy scheme kicks in only post construction, that is when cinema tickets are actually sold
We find that the explanation or reason given in paragraph 3 of this affidavit to be patently false. If paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of this affidavit-in-support cannot be reconciled, then, it is obvious that though aware of the conditional orders after lodging of the subject Appeal, the Revenue’s Advocate and the Revenue officials did not take the requisite steps. They cannot now come out with such a version for seeking restoration of a dismissed Appeal. The cause shown is, therefore, not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. In two similar Motions, we had deprecated the tendency of the Revenue to either blame it’s Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals
||A.K. Sikri J., Ashok Bhushan J
||search and seizure, Search assessment
||August 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
||September 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
Click here to view full post with file download link
S. 153A/ 153C: The seized incriminating material have to pertain to the AY in question and have co-relation, document-wise, with the AY. This requirement u/s 153C is essential and becomes a jurisdictional fact. It is an essential condition precedent that any money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in S. 153A. Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel 31 TM.com 50 (Guj) approved. SSP Aviation 20 TM.com 214 (Del) distinguished
Insofar as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, (2013) 31 taxmann.com 50 (Gujarat) relied upon by the learned Solicitor General is concerned, we find that the High Court in that case has categorically held that it is an essential condition precedent that any money, bullion or jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of accounts or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act. This proposition of law laid down by the High Court is correct, which is stated by the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment as well
By no interpretative process the explanation to Section 164 of the Act, which is pressed in service can be read for determinability of the shares of the beneficiary with the quantum on the date when the Trust deed is executed and the second reason is that the real test is the determinability of the shares of the beneficiary and is not dependent upon the date on which the trust deed was executed if one is to connect the same with the quantum. The real test is whether shares are determinable even when even or after the Trust is formed or may be in future when the Trust is in existence
The grievance of the Revenue as submitted by Mr.Kotangale is a submission made on the basis of suspicion and not on the basis of any evidence on record which would indicate that the respondent – assessee and persons searched were all part of the same group. Be that as it may, the requirement of Section 153C of the Act cannot be ignored at the alter of suspicion. The Revenue has to strictly comply with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. the seized document must belong to the respondent – assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void. The issue of Section 69C of the Act can only arise for consideration if the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act are upheld
The High Courts dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the assessee challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons which were recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Courts as not maintainable. The aforesaid view taken is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. Incom Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Anr. [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]
Mere non filing of return of income does not give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment unless the person concerned has total income which is assessable under the Act exceeding maximum amount which is not chargeable to Income Tax. This is provided in Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act. This is for the reason that in terms of Section 139(1) of the Act the obligation to file a return of income is only when the total income of a person exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. So also the obligation to obtain PAN only arises on the income being in excess of the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Therefore, non filing of return of income and/or not obtaining of PAN does not ipso facto give jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act
It was argued on behalf of the Revenue, that in view of the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case  187 ITR 541 (SC), even if the securities were treated as part of the trading assets, the income therefrom had to be assessed under section 18 of the Act and not under section 28 of the Act as income from securities can only come within section 18 and not under section 28. We do not find any merit in this argument. Firstly, as stated above, Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case  187 ITR 541 (SC) has no application to the facts of this case. Secondly, in the present case, the Tribunal has found that the securities were held as trading assets. Thirdly, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision reported in the case of CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.  57 ITR 306, that income from securities can also come under section 28 as income from business. This judgment is very important. It analyses the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd.’s case  32 ITR 688, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case  187 ITR 541. It is true that once an income falls under section 18, it cannot come under section 28. However, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.’s case  57 ITR 306, income from securities treated as trading assets can come under section 28. In the present case, the Department has treated income from securities under section 28.
The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-07 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 obtained a right to receive Rs.20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year. In the above view there could be no occasion to bring the maximum amount of Rs. 20 crores, which could be received as deferred consideration to tax in the subject assessment year as it had not accrued to the assessee.
We find this conduct on the part of the Assessing Officer to accept a stay application and not immediately give acknowledgement of its receipt is unacceptable. The least that is expected of a civil servant is to be fair and civil. In the absence of the above, his conduct is not one becoming of an Officer belonging to the prestigious Indian Revenue Service. The least that is expected of an Officer is that when a person files an application / letter, which is accepted by him, an acknowledgement should be forthwith given to the party filing the application or letter. In case he refuses to accept the letter he should endorse on the letter / application the reason why it is not being accepted with a line or two for the refusal to accept. In case he does accept it and give an acknowledgment he can deal with the applications/ letters as is appropriate in accordance with law. We believe that what has happened in this case is an aberration. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax would ensure that his Officers do not behave in such an high handed and unfair manner, not expected of civil servants