Home ›

Search Results For: Pradeep N. Kapasi

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 18, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The ITAT is an adjudicator and not an investigator. It has to rely upon the investigation / enquiry conducted by the AO. The Dept cannot fault the ITAT's order and seek a recall on the ground that an order of SEBI, though available, was not produced before the ITAT at the hearing. The negligence or laches lies with the Dept and for such negligence or laches, the order of the ITAT cannot be termed as erroneous u/s 254(2)

After the passing of the order of the Tribunal the Department has come forward with the final order of the SEBI by stating that, though, it was available at the time of hearing of appeal but it could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Thus, as could be seen whatever negligence or laches for not bringing the final order of SEBI to the notice of the Tribunal lies with the Department and for such negligence or laches of the Department, the appeal order passed by the Tribunal cannot be termed as erroneous to bring it within the ambit of section 254(2) of the Act.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2) r.w Rule 34(5): Excessive delay by the Tribunal in passing judgement shakes the confidence of the litigants. Under Rule 34(5) of the Tribunal Rules read with Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant 317 ITR 433 (Bom) & Otters Club (Bom), orders have to be passed invariably within three months of the completion of hearing of the case. The delay is incurable. Even administrative clearance cannot cure the delay. Such decisions rendered after 3 months reflect a mistake apparant from the record and have to be recalled and the appeals heard afresh

Nevertheless, we think that an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable even when written arguments are submitted. It is not unlikely that some points which the litigant considers important may have escaped notice. But, what is more important is that litigants must have complete confidence in the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments. Justice, as we have often observed, must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 1, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 17, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Explanation 2 to s. 263 (which supersedes the law that there is a difference between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry") is "declaratory & clarificatory" in nature and is inserted to provide clarity on the issue as to which orders passed by the AO shall constitute erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue

The amendment to section 263 of the Act by insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act is declaratory & clarificatory in nature and is inserted to provide clarity on the issue as to which orders passed by the AO shall constitute erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, it is, inter-alia, provided that if the order is passed without making inquiries or verifications by AO which, should have been made or the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; the order shall be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited v. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC) held that if the AO has accepted the entry in the statement of account filed by the taxpayer without making enquiry, the said order of the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In our considered opinion, the facts of the case of the assessee company are similar to the facts in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Limited(supra) whereby no enquiry/verification is made by the AO whatsoever with respect to claim of deduction of Rs. 17.72 crores with respect to the provisions for warranty, excise duty , sales tax and liquidated damages. Moreover, now Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act is inserted in the statute which is declaratory and claraficatory in nature to declare the law and provide clarity on the issue whereby if the A.O. failed to make any enquiry or necessary verification which should have been made, the order becomes erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Read more ›