(62.4 KiB, 631 DLs)

S. 147/148: Reopening of assessment due to revenue audit’s compulsion is void

The AO passed a s. 143(3) assessment order in which he allowed the assessee’s claim for business expenses. The Revenue Audit raised an objection that as the assessee’s business had ceased, the income had to assessed as “other sources” and the expenditure disallowed. The AO replied to the Audit stating that the objection was not correct and that the assessment order was correct. The Revenue Audit thereafter wrote to the CIT that the AO’s stand was not correct. Based on this, the AO issued a s. 148 notice (within 4 years from the end of the AY) to reopen the assessment and disallow the expenditure. The assessee challenged the reopening on the basis that the AO was compelled by the audit party to re-open the assessment though he was of the belief that no income had escaped assessment. HELD by the High Court upholding the plea:

If the audit party brings certain aspects to the notice of the AO, he is entitled to reopen the assessment after forming his own belief. However, if the AO acts under compulsion of the audit party and not independently, the action of re-opening would be vitiated. On facts, it is clearly established that the AO was under compulsion from the audit party to issue notice for reopening because after the audit party brought the controversial issue to the notice of the AO, he did not agreed to the proposal for re-examination of the issue and wrote a letter and gave elaborate reasons why the assessment order was correct. The s. 148 notice was issued only after the Revenue Audit wrote to the CIT reiterating its stand that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the s. 148 notice had to be quashed (Cadila Healthcare 65 DTR (Guj) 385 followed; P.V.S Beedies 237 ITR 13 (SC) referred).

(108.4 KiB, 794 DLs)

S. 220(6): Demand should be stayed if strong prima facie case made out. Demand on covered issues cannot be recovered by adjustment of refunds

The AO passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) and raised a demand of Rs. 1719 crores. In response to the assessee’s stay application, the AO accepted that demand of Rs. 1370 crores had to be kept in abeyance as they were covered in favour of the assessee by appellate orders for earlier years. However, he still held that the said demand had to be adjusted against refunds of Rs. 560 crores determined for earlier years. He demanded that the balance demand of Rs. 377 crores on the other issues be paid by the assessee. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the adjustment of refunds against the demand on covered issues and the non-grant of stay on the other issues. HELD by the High Court:

The manner in which and the ground on which an adjustment of the refund was made is arbitrary and contrary to law. The stay order states that the assessee would not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of covered issues. Yet the department has proceeded to adjust the refund due and payable to the assessee merely on the ground that the department’s appeal is pending. The adjustment of a refund is a mode of effecting recovery. Once an issue has been covered in favour of the assessee in respect of another assessment year on the same point, it was wholly arbitrary on the part of the department to proceed to make an adjustment of the refund. If the adjustment was not made, there can be no manner of doubt that the assessee would have been entitled to a stay on the recovery of the demand. The demand cannot be adjusted by the department in this manner merely because it is in possession of the funds belonging to the assessee to which the assessee is legitimately entitled to and has been granted a refund. The making of an adjustment in these facts is totally arbitrary and contrary to law. As regards the other issues, the assessee has made out a strong prima facie case for a stay of the recovery of the demand. As the action of the department in adjusting the refunds due to the assessee was contrary to law, the interests of justice would be served if the department is permitted to make an adjustment to an extent of Rs.60 crores and refund the balance with interest.

(41.2 KiB, 1,764 DLs)

S. 40(a)(ia) TDS: Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping is not good law

The assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 31 lakhs on freight but did not deduct TDS thereon u/s 194C. The AO held that as there was a failure to deduct TDS, the expenditure could not be allowed as a deduction u/s 40(a)(ia). However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim on the ground that the freight charge was a part of the price of the goods and there was no contract between the assessee and the transporter. On appeal by the department, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by relying on the Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping 146 TTJ 1 (Viz) (SB) where it was held (by a majority) that s. 40(a)(ia) had no application to amounts that were already “paid” during the year but it was confined to amounts remaining “payable” as at the end of the year. On further appeal by the department, HELD reversing the Tribunal:

We already have delivered a judgment on 3rd April, 2013 in ITAT No. 20 of 2013, G.A. No. 190 of 2013 (CIT, Kolkata-XI Vs. Crescent Export Syndicates) holding that the views expressed in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (ITA.477/Viz./2008 dated 20.3.2012) were not acceptable. That is one reason why the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal. Another reason for remanding the matter to the Tribunal is that the finding of facts recorded by the CIT (Appeal) was not tested by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a decision de novo.

(38.6 KiB, 388 DLs)

Low Tax Effect Circular: Dept to show why appeal should not be dismissed

The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tax involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs prescribed in CBDT Instruction No.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011. The Tribunal followed Madhukar Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 (Bom) where it was held that the CBDT Instructions fixing monetary limit for filing an appeal to the Tribunal would apply even to pending cases. The Department then filed a MA before the Tribunal pointing out that in CIT v. Surya Herbal the Supreme Court had held that the CBDT Instruction No.3/2011 would not apply ipso facto and would not apply where the matter has cascading effect or raises a common principle involving a large number of matters. The Tribunal dismissed the MA. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The grievance of the Revenue is that the Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal by following the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Surya Herbal Ltd. However, the revenue has not been able to point out before us any of circumstance as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Herbal Ltd being applicable to this case which would lead to non application of CBDT instructions No.3/2011. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law (it was also held following Chem Amit 272 ITR 397 that an appeal u/s 260A cannot be filed to challenge an order dismissing a MA)

(80.4 KiB, 813 DLs)

S. 54F: Deposit in capital gains account scheme by s. 139(4) due date sufficient

The assessee sold property on 20.06.2006 (AY 2007-08) for a consideration of Rs. 2.24 crores. The said amount was not invested in the capital gains account scheme by the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) (31.07.2007) and was instead used to purchase a new residential house on 31.3.2008. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F which was denied by the AO & CIT(A) on the basis that u/s 54F(4) the amount of the consideration which is not appropriated for purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139 had to be deposited in the “capital gains account scheme” before the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1). On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the claim. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

Though s. 54F(4) provides that the amount not appropriated towards purchase of the new asset has to be deposited in the capital gains account scheme before the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1), sub-section (4) of s. 139 is in the nature of a proviso to s. 139(1). S. 139(4) provides that a person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under s. 139(1) may furnish the return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. For AY 2007-08, the last date for filing the return u/s 139(4) is 31.3.2009. This extended time limit is available for making deposit in the capital gains account scheme. As the assessee had invested the consideration in purchase of a new house before that date, the exemption has to be allowed (Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (P&H), Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 & Fathima Bai (Kar) followed)

(76.8 KiB, 988 DLs)

No S. 271(1)(c) penalty if wrong claim due to mistake/ wrong advice of CA

The assessee filed a return of income in which it committed two mistakes (i) Depreciation was claimed at Rs.1.70 crores instead of at Rs. 1.05 crores due to a mistake in calculation, (ii) the assessee sold its garment manufacturing machine and suffered a loss of Rs.21.68 lakhs thereon. Though the loss was on capital account, it was claimed as a revenue deduction. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee realised its mistake and withdrew the claim for excess depreciation and the claim for the loss. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on both issues which was confirmed by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal held that both mistakes had occurred due to a mistake/ wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant and that there was a “bona fide mistake”. It was also held that “the bonafide of the assessee is established from the fact that the assessee accepted the mistake and did not prefer any appeal against the order of the AO”. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The grievance of the revenue is that penalty is justifed in view of the fact that the assessee had not filed a revised return of income. However, the Tribunal noted that the time to file revised return had expired. In any event, even the revenue does not dispute that it was a bonafiide mistake on the part of the assessee. In the above view, imposition of penalty upon the assessee is not warranted.

(193.6 KiB, 559 DLs)

Explanation that s. 80IA(4) does not apply to “works contracts” is clarificatory and its retrospective operation is valid

By the Finance Act No.2 of 2009 an Explanation was added to s. 80IA(4) with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000 to provide that s. 80IA(4) would apply to a business which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person and executed by an undertaking or enterprise. The said retrospective amendment was challenged on the ground that (i) it was a fresh levy of tax, (ii) no reasons were given to support the retrospective levy, (iii) the period of retrospective operation was long and so it violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. HELD by the High Court dismissing the challenge:

(i) An enactment can be questioned only on the ground of lack of competence or on the ground that the statute violates the fundamental rights or any other constitutional provisions. An enactment cannot be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. As all taxes are raised for public good, there is considerable latitude to Parliament in framing a taxing statute. There is always a presumption of constitutionality and the burden is on the Petitioner bringing such a challenge;

(ii) On merits, the argument that the Explanation below s. 80-IA (13) provides for a levy of tax which was hitherto unknown is not acceptable. It cannot be said that the Legislature in introducing the explanation materially changed the exemption which existed till such explanation was introduced. The explanation was introduced for the “removal of doubts” and is declaratory in nature. By the Explanation, the Legislature has distinguished between cases of developing/ operating etc from a works contract. It cannot be disputed that there is an intrinsic difference between developing an infrastructure facility and executing a works contract. The Explanation merely aims to clarify that deduction u/s 80IA(4) is not available in case of execution of works contract. Such an interpretation is possible even on the basis of the existing provisions of s. 80IA (4) (Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 (Guj) referred)

(65.7 KiB, 595 DLs)

Stay Applications are not a “Meaningless Formality”. No recovery during pendency of a stay application. S. 226(3) notice must ordinarily be pre-served on assessee

The assessee, an age-old charitable trust, amended its objects. Because of this change, the AO passed an order u/s 143(3) denying exemption u/s 11 and raised a demand of Rs. 11 crores. The assessee filed a stay application and requested a hearing. During the pendency of the stay application, the AO issued a notice u/s 226(3) and attached the assessee’s bank accounts. The notice specifically stated that the bank should not contact the assessee till payment was made. A copy of the said notice was not served on the assessee. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the recovery action undertaken by the department. HELD by the High Court allowing the Petition:

(i) The action of attaching the assessee’s bank account u/s 226(3) during the pendency of a stay application and without giving it notice was arbitrary and high handed. The whole object of serving a notice on the assessee is to enable the assessee to have some recourse. While in a given case, it may not be feasible to serve a prior notice on the assessee if there is an apprehension that the monies would be spirited away, this was not a case of that type. In a situation such as the present where appeals filed by the assessee are pending before the CIT (A) and the assessee had sought an opportunity of being heard and filed applications for stay, there was no justification whatsoever to proceed hastily with the enforcement of the recovery of the demand without disposing of the application for stay;

(ii) Applications for stay cannot be treated by the AOs & appellate authorities as meaningless formalities. Quasi judicial authorities have to apply their mind in an objective and dispassionate manner to the merits of each application for stay. While the interests of the Revenue has to be protected, it is necessary for AOs to realize that fairness to the assessee is an intrinsic element of the quasi judicial function conferred upon them by law. Applications for stay must be disposed of at an early date. Such applications cannot be kept pending to obviate compliance with the need to evaluate the contentions of the assessee until after monies are recovered using the coercive arm of the law. Appellate authorities must set down time schedules for disposal of stay applications with reasonable expedition. The manner in which recourse has been made to the coercive process of law, leaves much to be desired and the action which was pursued was completely high handed and arbitrary. There could have been absolutely no apprehension that the assessee in the present case was likely to spirit out the monies which were invested in Fixed Deposits. A part of the money has to be refunded to the assessee to carry out its day-to-day activities.

(135.9 KiB, 799 DLs)

Stay of demand can be granted even if there is no financial hardship

The AO raised a demand on the assessee on the same lines as had been done in the preceding AY. Though in the preceding AY, the assessee had obtained a stay from the High Court (see UTI Mutual Fund vs. ITO 345 ITR 71 (Bom)), the AO refused to follow that for the present AY. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the refusal to grant stay. To oppose the grant of stay, the department relied on CIT vs. IBM India Pvt. Ltd where the Karnataka High Court had held that in matters involving large amounts due to the Revenue, an interim order of stay would be granted only in case of genuine financial hardship of the assessee and not otherwise. The Department argued that as the assessee did not have any financial hardship, the stay should be rejected. HELD by the High Court rejecting the department’s plea and granting stay of the demand:

The order of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. IBM India Pvt. Ltd cannot be read to mean that consideration of whether an assessee has made out a strong prima facie case for stay of enforcement of a demand is irrelevant. Nor is the law to the effect that absent a case of financial hardship, no stay on the recovery of a demand can be granted even though a strong prima facie case is made out. In considering whether a stay of demand should be granted, the Court is duty bound to consider not merely the issue of financial hardship if any, but also whether a strong prima facie raising a serious triable issue has been raised which would warrant a dispensation of deposit. That is a settled position in the jurisprudence of our revenue legislation. In CEAT Limited v. UOI 2010 (250) ELT 200 (Bom) it was held that “If the party has made out a strong prima facie case, that by itself would be a strong ground in the matter of exercise of discretion as calling on the party to deposit the amount which prima facie is not liable to deposit or which demand has no legs to stand upon, by itself would result in undue hardship of the party is called upon to deposit the amount.” Where a strong prima facie case has been made out, calling upon the assessee to deposit would itself occasion undue hardship. Where the issue has raised a strong prima face case which requires serious consideration as in the present case, a requirement of pre-deposit would itself be a matter of hardship. Also the manner in which the Revenue has sought to brush aside a binding decision of the Court in the case of the assessee on the issue of a stay on enforcement for the previous year has to be serious disapproved. The rule of law has an abiding value in our legal regime. No public authority, including the Revenue, can ignore the principle of precedent. Certainty in tax administration is of cardinal importance and its absence undermines public confidence.

(269.9 KiB, 1,858 DLs)

Strict guidelines issued to end Dept’s TDS credit & refund adjustment harassment

Anand Parkash, FCA, addressed a letter dated 30.4.2012 to the High Court in which he set out the numerous problems being faced by the assesses across the Country owing to the faulty processing of the Income Tax Returns and non-grant of TDS credit & refunds. He claimed that because of the department’s fault, the assessees were being harassed. The High Court took judicial notice of the letter, converted it into a public interest writ petition and directed the CBDT to answer each of the allegations made in the letter and certain other queries that the Court raised. The Court also appointed eminent senior counsel to assist it. The department accepted that tax payers are facing difficulties in receiving credit of TDS & refunds on account of adjustment towards arrears. Thereafter, as an interim measure to provide immediate relief to the assessees, the Court passed an order dated 31.08.2012 by which it gave detailed directions. After further hearing, HELD by the Court:

(i) Re Uploading of wrong or fictitious demand: The CBDT has accepted that incorrect and wrong demands have been uploaded on the CPC arrears portal. In his letter dated 21.08.2012, the CIT, CPC, has expressed his concern and anguish on account of uploading of incorrect and wrong data in the CPU and the problem faced by them and by the assesses. The CBDT has issued Circular No. 4 of 2012 in which the burden is put on the assessee to approach the AOs to get their records updated and corrected by filing s. 154 applications. While this may be the easiest option available, it should not be a ground for the AO not to suo motu correct his records and upload correct data. Each assessee has a right and can demand that correct and true data relating to the past demands should be uploaded. Asking the assessee to file s. 154 applications entails substantial expenses and defeats the main purpose behind computerisation. Also, the AO’s do not adhere to the time limit prescribed for disposal of the s. 154 applications. To ensure transparency (and accountability), a register must be maintained with details and particulars of each application made u/s 154, the date on which it was made, date of disposal and its fate. The s. 154 application has to be disposed of by a speaking order and communicated to the assessee. There must be full compliance of the said requirements;

(ii) Re Adjustment of refund contrary to s. 245: S. 245 postulates two stage action; first a prior intimation to the assessee and then, if warranted, the subsequent adjustments of the refund towards arrears. This is not being followed by the CPC because the computer itself adjusts the refund due against the existing demand. To prevent this breach of the law, the department must follow the procedure prescribed u/s 245 and give the assessee an opportunity to file a reply which should be considered by the AO before giving the direction for adjustment. As regards the cases where such (illegal) adjustment has been made in the past, the cases must be transferred to the AOs for issue of notice to the assessee seeking adjustment of refund. The assessees will be entitled to file a reply to the notice and the AO will then pass an order u/s 245 allowing the refund. The CBDT has to fix a time limit and schedule for completing the said process. Though the process involves expenditure and paper work, the situation has arisen due to the lapses on the part of the AOs and the assessees cannot be made to suffer for the wrong uploading of arrears and wrong adjustment of refund. The question of the assessee’s entitlement to interest on the SA tax is left open though when the delay is due to the fault of the Revenue, interest should be paid u/s 244A. False uploading of past arrears and failure to follow the mandate of s. 245 is a lapse on the part of the AO;

(iii) Re non-communication of adjusted s. 143(1) intimations: The non-communication of s. 143(1) intimations, where adjustments on account of rejection of TDS or tax paid has been made, is a matter of grave concern. When there is failure to dispatch the intimation within a reasonable time to the assessee, the return shall be deemed to have been accepted and the intimation will be treated as non est or invalid for want of service. The onus to show that the order was served on the assessee is on the Revenue and not upon the assessee. If a TDS or tax credit claim has been rejected on a technicality but there is no communication to the assessee of the order/intimation u/s 143(1), the AO cannot enforce the demand created by the said order/intimation;

(iv) Re non-grant of credit for TDS: The problem regarding rejection of TDS credit is in two categories. The first is those where the deductors fail to upload the correct particulars of the TDS which has been deducted and paid and the second is where there is a mismatch between the details uploaded by the deductor and the details furnished by the assessee in the ROI. As regards the first, the CBDT had earlier directed that the AOs to accept the TDS claims without verification where the difference between the TDS claimed and the TDS as per AS26 did not exceed rupees one lakh. This figure has now been reduced to a mere Rs.5,000. Ex-facie, there is no justification for the reduction because credit is being given only if the three core fields match. The CBDT must re-examine this aspect and take suitable remedial steps if they feel that unnecessary burden or harassment will be caused to the assessees. As regards cases of mismatch because of different methods of accounting, or offering income in different years, the department must take remedial steps and ensure that in such cases TDS is not rejected on the ground that the amounts do not tally. The department should also fix a time limit within which they shall verify and correct all unmatched challans. An assessee as a deductee should not suffer because of fault made by deductor or inability of the Revenue to ask the deductor to rectify and correct. Once payment has been received by the Revenue, credit should be given to the assessee. The CBDT should issue suitable directions in this regard. The department’s response on the action taken against deductors for non-compliance is unfortunate and unsatisfactory and it purports to express complete helplessness on the part of the Revenue to take steps and seeks to absolve them from any responsibility. Denying benefit of TDS to a taxpayer because of the fault of the deductor causes unwarranted harassment and inconvenience. The deductee feels cheated. The Revenue cannot be a silence spectator, wash their hands and pretend helplessness. S. 234E has now been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 to levy a fee of Rs.200 per day for default of the deductor to file TDS statement within due date. It is unfortunate that the Board did not take immediate steps after even noticing lacuna and waited till FA 2012. The stand of the Revenue that they can only write a letter to the deductor to persuade him to correct the uploaded entries or to upload the details is not acceptable. The AO must use his power and authority to ensure that the deductor complies with the law.