9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 773 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act Non-appearance of assessee on various occasions Held that - No one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment is made - Notice has been issued on 01/04/2014 fixing the date of hearing on 15/05/2014 which was sent through Registered Post (A.D.) to the assessee and the same was returned by the Postal Authorities unserved - It is transpired from the order-sheet that the assessee has sought various adjournments, i.e. on 12/4/2013, 12/02/2014 & 01/04/2014 - From the conduct of the assessee, the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal Decided against Assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for profits and gains derived from the export of gold medallions and cut and polished diamonds. 2. Rejection of revision in the quantum of the deduction claimed under Section 10AA. 3. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Issue 1: Disallowance of Deduction under Section 10AA: The appellant contested the disallowance of a deduction of Rs. 43,12,008 under Section 10AA for profits from the export of gold medallions and diamonds. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer's conclusions were based on suspicions and surmises, ignoring positive evidence. The appellant highlighted that Section 10AA did not mandate a specific method of value addition and that trading was covered under the definition of "services." The appellant also referenced specific instructions from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry supporting their claim. Despite detailed submissions, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, leading to the appellant's appeal. Issue 2: Rejection of Revision in Quantum of Deduction under Section 10AA: The appellant revised the quantum of deduction claimed under Section 10AA from Rs. 43,12,008 to Rs. 1,89,05,825 due to a retrospective amendment in the law. The revision was communicated through a letter during assessment proceedings, not by filing a revised return. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's rejection of the revision, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT. However, the appellant argued that the revision was necessitated by the retrospective amendment and did not amount to circumventing the law. The appellant relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision to support their contention that the revision was legitimate. Issue 3: Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C: The appellant challenged the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, arguing that it was not merely consequential. The appellant contended that even if the disallowance of the deduction was upheld, the interest levy should be reconsidered based on relevant legal precedents. The CIT(A) dismissed this ground, prompting the appellant's appeal. Issue 4: Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The appellant questioned the premature initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), asserting that there was no justification for such action. The appellant urged for the penalty proceedings to be dropped to avoid unnecessary litigation. Despite the appellant's arguments, the CIT(A) dismissed this ground, leading to further contention in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal due to the appellant's lack of interest in prosecuting the case, following legal precedents that supported such dismissals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the conduct of the appellant and the failure to appear for hearings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in limine.
|
