Supreme Court held that since notice under section 131 issued by Assessing Officer to those who had allegedly paid commission to assessee were not complied with and it was assertion on behalf of assessee that it earned income of commission within Sikkim, burden to prove same was upon assessee and that Tribunal wrongly and erroneously shifted burden upon Assessing Officer to prove contrary. It further held that, in absence of any material on record that commission was earned only in Gangtok, assessee could not be permitted to say that it was liable to pay tax under Sikkim State Income-tax Manual, 1948 and not under Act, 1961.Apex Court further held that it appeared that assessee with mala fide intention and to evade payment of tax under Act, 1961 came out with a case that it earned income within Sikkim, which had not been established and proved, thus, it was a clear attempt on part of respective assessee to wriggle out of clutches of Act, 1961. Review petition is dismissed. (AY. 1987-88 to 1989-90)
Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 513 (SC) Editorial : Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 661/ 293 Taxman 312 (SC).
S. 147 : Reassessment-Residential Status-Resident or non-resident-Service of notice on chartered Accountant-Reassessment notice was held to be valid-Interest-Levy of interest-Automatic-Working in ITNS 150 forming part of assessment order was proper-Sikkim-Commission-Burden not discharged-Round tripping of funds-Liable to tax in India-Review petition is dismissed. [S. 2(35), 5, 6(3)(ii), 131, 142(1), 143(2), 148, 234A, 282]