Home ›

Search Results For: Neelkanth Khandelwal

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 8, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253(3) Condonation of delay: The tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter should be discouraged. The notion that the ITAT should always condone the delay should not be promoted. For mistake of lawyer to serve as valid consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay, the mistake must be such as may be made by a professional lawyer well-versed and experienced in law. "Useless advice" by a professional to not file appeal and to instead file a Cross Objection if Revenue filed the appeal cannot help the assessee because there was always going to be a chance that Revenue might not file appeal. Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and, it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that wrong advice was given bonafide (all judgements considered)

It is not as if mistake of a legal advisor, however, gross and inexcusable, will entitle an assessee to condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The facts of the case are to be examined to ascertain if there had been negligence or gross want of skill, competence or knowledge on the part of the legal advisor; or whether there was only a mistake that even a skilled legal advisor, well-versed and experienced in law might make that mistake. It is only in the latter case that an assessee may justifiably seek condonation of delay

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Severe strictures issued against DCIT for illegal tax recovery. DCIT directed to pay costs of Rs. 1.50 lakh from salary to the assessee. Dept directed to make entry of lapse & error in the Annual Confidential Report of the AO. Strictures also passed against DCIT for overreaching authority & power by not allowing Dept's Counsel to argue. Such conduct of DCIT does not enhance the image and reputation of Dept

If we allow such oral routine explanation to be tendered and accepted, we do not think that the state of affairs will ever improve. The superiors in the hierarchy have never bothered as to whether the discipline demanded from these officers is indeed in place. Though there is lack of discipline and there is gross insubordination, still, the acts of omission and commission are overlooked

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: If the holding of shares is D-mat account cannot be disputed then the transaction cannot be held as bogus. The AO has also not disputed the sale of shares from the D-mat account of the assessee and the sale consideration was directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. Once the assessee produced all relevant evidence to substantiate the transaction of purchase, dematerialization and sale of shares then, in the absence of any contrary material brought on record the same cannot be held as bogus transaction merely on the basis of statement of one Anil Agrawal recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein there is a general statement of providing bogus long term capital gain transaction to the clients without stating anything about the transaction of allotment of shares by the company to the assessee

The assessee has produced the D-mat account and therefore, as on 18.06.2012 the assessee was holding 3,50,000 equity shares of M/s Rutron International Ltd. in D-mat account. This fact of holding the shares in the D-mat account as on 18.06.2012 cannot be disputed. Further, the Assessing Officer has not even disputed the existence of the D-mat account and shares credited in the D-mat account of the assessee. Therefore, once, the holding of shares is D-mat account cannot be disputed then the transaction cannot be held as bogus. The AO has not disputed the sale of shares from the D-mat account of the assessee and the sale consideration was directly credited to the bank account of the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: In the case of credit as share capital by corporate entity, whose existence is shown by its registration with Registrar of companies and its filing of tax returns, adverse conclusion is not justified merely because its directors are not produced personally before the AO by the assessee. The AO has to demonstrate with specific evidence that the assessee has in reality obtained accommodation entries by showing cash deposits linked to the investors

Section 68 casts the initial burden of proof on the assesse to show prima facie and to explain the nature and source of credit found in its books. When the statute places the burden of proof in income tax cases on the tax payer, it is understood to be only the initial burden. When the tax payer explains the credit by providing evidence of identity, confirmation and credit worthiness, the burden shifts on the revenue to show that the explanation is not satisfactory or incorrect. In the case of credit as share capital by corporate entity, whose existence is shown by its registration with Registrar of companies and its filing of tax returns, adverse conclusion is not justified merely because its directors are not produced personally before the assessing officer by the tax payer

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 5, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 23, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus purchases: (i) The AO is not entitled to treat the purchases as bogus merely on the basis of information from the sales-tax dept. He has to make independent inquiry, (ii) Fact that the vendors did not respond to s. 133(6) notices & the assessee did not produce them is not sufficient if the documentation is in order and payments are through banking channels

It is evident from the assessment order that on the basis of information obtained from the Sales Tax Department, Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6). As the assessee failed to produce the concerned parties, the Assessing Officer, primarily relying upon the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department held the purchases to be bogus and added 12.5% profit in addition to the normal profit declared by the assessee. Though, it may be a fact that assessee was not able to produce the concerned parties before the Assessing Officer, for whatever may be the reason, fact remains that during assessment proceedings itself the assessee had produced confirmed ledger copies of concerned parties, bank account statement, purchase bills, delivery challans, etc., to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the sales effected by the assessee. Thus, it is logical to conclude that without corresponding purchases being effected the assessee could not have made the sales. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to conclusively establish the fact that purchases are bogus

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 2, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If the notice does not clearly specify whether the penalty is initiated for "concealment" or for "filing inaccurate particulars", it is invalid. Mere fact that assessee has surrendered income does not justify penalty if his explanation is not found to be false/ not bona fide

The notice issued by the AO u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings states that it is issued for “concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. The assessing officer has not specified that as to which limb the notice was issued, i.e., whether it is issued for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessing officer should be clear about the charge at the time of issuing the notice and the assessee should be made aware of the charge. The penalty order is liable to be quashed as the AO has not correctly specified the charge

Read more ›