Search Results For: 143(3)


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Settlement Application: For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. an assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The assessee is entitled to proceed on the basis that till the service of the assessment order, the case continues to be pending with the AO. Therefore, it was open to him to invoke the provisions of Chapter XIXA of the Act (CIT Vs. ITSC 58 TM 264 & Yashovardhan Birla 73 TM 5 followed, V.R.A. Cotton Mills 33 TM 675 & Shlibhadra Developers 2016 (10) TMI 778 distinguished)

For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The declaration of law by this Court is binding on all authorities within the State including the Commission. The petitioner was entitled to proceed on the basis that till the service of the assessment order, the case continues to be pending with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it was open to him to invoke the provisions of Chapter XIXA of the Act on 30th March, 2016 as till that date the assessment order was not served upon him

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 12, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(3): If the case is selected for limited scrutiny of a specific issue, the AO has no jurisdiction to make additions or disallowances on other issues.

The impugned additions have been made by the Assessing Officer on certain other issues, whereas, the case of the assessee was selected for the purpose of limited scrutiny relating to security transactions. The additions made by the Assessing Officer, thus, being exceeding his jurisdiction are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 14, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus expenditure: A statement recorded u/s 133A under fear/ coercion cannot be relied upon by the AO if it is not corroborated by documentary evidence. The assessee is entitled to retract such statement. The AO is bound to give the assessee an opportunity to controvert evidence and cross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. A failure in providing the same can result in the order being a nullity (All judgements considered)

Retraction being on affidavit was legal and valid and was not belated. Further retraction was supported by explanation of impounded documents to the Survey team. The impounded document did not contain any information which was not recorded in the books of accounts. Hence, in view of retraction and such retraction based on concrete evidence, no addition can be made on the basis of statement taken during survey without bringing on record some corroborative materials

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision: U/s 114(e) of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that a s. 143(3) assessment order is regularly passed after application of mind. If the assessee is consistently following the same method of valuation of closing stock, the CIT is not entitled to disturb the consistent method (all judgements referred)

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

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 8, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision: Even after the insertion of Explanation 2, the CIT has to show that the view of the AO is wholly unsustainable in law. It is only in a very gross case of inadequacy in inquiry or where inquiry is per se mandated on the basis of record available before the AO and such inquiry was not conducted, the revisional power so conferred can be exercised to invalidate the action of AO. Otherwise, every order of the AO would become susceptible to S. 263 and, in turn, will cause serious unintended hardship to the tax payer concerned for no fault on his part

The Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a view was already taken after inquiry. If such course of action as interpreted by the Revisional Commissioner in the light of the Explanation 2 is permitted, Revisional Commissioner can possibly find fault with each and every assessment order without himself making any inquiry or verification and without establishing that assessment order is not sustainable in law. This would inevitably mean that every order of the lower authority would thus become susceptible to Section 263 of the Act and, in turn, will cause serious unintended hardship to the tax payer concerned for no fault on his part. Apparently, this is not intended by the Explanation. Howsoever wide the scope of Explanation 2(a) may be, its limits are implicit in it. It is only in a very gross case of inadequacy in inquiry or where inquiry is per se mandated on the basis of record available before the AO and such inquiry was not conducted, the revisional power so conferred can be exercised to invalidate the action of AO

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 5, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Difference between "Res Judicata" and "Consistency Principle" explained. While "res judicate" does not apply to income-tax matters, the principles of consistency does. If the Revenue has accepted a practice and consistently applied and followed it, the Revenue is bound by it. The Revenue can change the practice only if there is a change in law or change in facts and not otherwise

The reason why courts have held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in one assessment year to the same opinion in a subsequent year is not because of any principle of res judicata but because of the theory of precedent or the precedential value of the earlier pronouncement. Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasijudicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 139(5): There is no bar / restriction that an assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). A revised return of income can be filed even in course of the assessment proceedings provided the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is available. The Departmental Authorities are not expected to deny assessee’s legitimate claim by raising technical objection

There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in course of the assessment proceedings, provided, the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act is available. That being the case, the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be held as invalid

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(3)/ 292C: If the AO wants to rely upon documents found with third parties, the presumption u/s 292C against the assessee is not available. As per the principles of natural justice, the AO has to provide the evidence to the assessee & grant opportunity of cross-examination. Secondary evidences cannot be relied on as if neither the person who prepared the documents nor the witnesses are produced. The violation of natural justice renders the assessment void. The Dept cannot be given a second chance (All judgements considered)

Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice: A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 8, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
CBDT guidelines for scrutiny of cases: Law explained as to how the CBDT Guidelines for manual selection of cases for scrutiny have to be interpreted and whether CIT in granting approval is required to show application of mind and give reasons for his decision

The Criteria / Guidelines for Income tax Scrutiny dated 10th September 2011 authorize the Assessing Officer to select any return for scrutiny after recording the reasons and obtaining approval of the CCIT/CIT. The case under the category should be selected if, they are compelling the reasons and the case selected through CASS. These cases should be watched by CCIT / CIT in respect of the quality of assessment. In our view, the requirements of the guidelines have been met by the AO in this case. The term compelling reasons is a relative term and has to be viewed from the point of view of the AO

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10 to 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: If the AO has not disputed the genuineness of sales and the quantitative details and the day to day stock register maintained by the assessee, a trader, he cannot make an addition in respect of peak balance of the bogus purchases. He can only determine the element of profit embedded in the bogus purchases. On facts, the addition is restricted to 2% of the bogus purchase

AO has not disputed the quantitative details and also day to day stock register maintained by the assessee. Assessee company being a trader of goods, AO not having doubted the genuineness of sales, could not have gone ahead and made addition in respect of peak balance on such purchases. Accordingly, CIT(A) concluded that issue boil down to find out the element of profit embedded in bogus purchases which the assessee would have made. When the corresponding sales have not been doubted and the quantitative details of purchases and sales vis-a-vis stock was available, we deem it appropriate considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% of such bogus purchase. Accordingly, the order of both the lower authorities are modified and AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% on such purchases.