9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 923 - AT - Income TaxNotice u/s 148 - Objection on reassessment - Held that - the objections sought to be raised by the assessee are a valuable right, which, if denied, may render the entire reassessment process invalid. Conversely, we hold that in case, it is found from the cogent evidence that the assessee was very well aware of its right to raise objections since the very beginning and it had not preferred to exercise the same, it is not entitled to seek leave for challenging the legality of reopening and more so, in the second appeal before us. Hence, we are of the view that the petition dated 04.05.2012 preferred by the assessee does not deserve acceptance. Accordingly, it is rejected. - Decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Bad Debts Disallowance 2. Depreciation on Leased Assets 3. Software Expenses 4. Subscription to SEBI 5. Cash in Excess 6. Surplus from Jewel Auction 7. Filing Fees 8. Appreciation in the Market Value of Securities 9. Excess Depreciation Claimed 10. Interest Accrued on Securities 11. Expenditure for Earning Tax-Free Income 12. Pension Payments 13. Ex-Gratia Payments 14. Provision for Fraud 15. Encashment of Privilege Leave 16. Amortization of Investment 17. Brokerage Payment 18. Unclaimed Balance 19. Validity of Reopening of Assessment Detailed Analysis: 1. Bad Debts Disallowance: The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.18,75,59,964/-. The Revenue argued that under the proviso to clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 36, only bad debts written off over and above the credit balance available in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal restored this issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification to avoid double deduction, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT. 2. Depreciation on Leased Assets: The CIT(A) allowed depreciation on leased assets. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove the existence of assets leased to certain parties. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issue had been decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years and that the assets in question were verified and found to exist. 3. Software Expenses: The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of software expenses, treating them as capital expenditure. The Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's contention that the software expenses were for replacing existing software and thus of a revenue nature, deleting the addition. 4. Subscription to SEBI: The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.2,50,000/- paid as a subscription to SEBI. The Revenue did not raise any specific contention regarding this issue before the Tribunal. 5. Cash in Excess: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.57,040/- related to cash in excess. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, noting that the assessee offered cash excess to tax every fourth year, including the impugned assessment year. 6. Surplus from Jewel Auction: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.43,233/- received from the surplus of jewel auction. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, referencing the Coordinate Bench's decision in the case of City Union Bank Ltd. and noting that the surplus from jewel auction remained a liability to the pledgers. 7. Filing Fees: The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.15,00,000/- paid for increasing authorized capital, treating it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this finding, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT. 8. Appreciation in the Market Value of Securities: No specific contention was raised regarding this issue before the Tribunal. 9. Excess Depreciation Claimed: The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs.35,33,598/-. The Tribunal restored this issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. 10. Interest Accrued on Securities: The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,92,56,342/- for interest accrued on securities not offered as income. The Tribunal upheld this finding. 11. Expenditure for Earning Tax-Free Income: The CIT(A) disallowed 2% of the tax-free income as expenditure for earning such income. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, referencing the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. Simpson and Co. Ltd. v. DCIT. 12. Pension Payments: The CIT(A) disallowed the amount paid directly to pensioners. The Tribunal restored this issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to examine the commercial expediency under section 37(1) of the Act. 13. Ex-Gratia Payments: No specific contention was raised regarding this issue before the Tribunal. 14. Provision for Fraud: No specific contention was raised regarding this issue before the Tribunal. 15. Encashment of Privilege Leave: No specific contention was raised regarding this issue before the Tribunal. 16. Amortization of Investment: The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of amortization expenses. The Tribunal upheld this finding. 17. Brokerage Payment: The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of brokerage expenses. The Tribunal restored this issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. 18. Unclaimed Balance: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of unclaimed balances. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, referencing the Coordinate Bench's decision in the case of City Union Bank Ltd. 19. Validity of Reopening of Assessment: The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition to raise additional grounds challenging the validity of reopening, citing the belated nature of the plea and lack of bonafides. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, restoring certain issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, while upholding the CIT(A)'s findings on other issues.
|
