|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 467 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 107
Disallowance of Input Tax Credit only on the ground that the claims have been lodged beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the GST Acts - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 28.12.2023 is set aside. The learned assessing/adjudicating authority/ respondent shall re-do the assessment by taking into account the amendment referred supra. The petitioner may submit their objection by way of reply, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the amendment and other details. If any such reply is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 106
Violation of principles of natural justice - service of SCN - petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT:- Upon service of notice, the petitioner had been called to file its reply only. Consequently, non-compliance of that show cause notice may have only led to closure of opportunity to submit written reply. However by virtue of the express provision of Section 75 of the Act, even in that situation the petitioner did not lose its right to participate at oral hearing and establish at that stage itself that the adverse conclusions proposed to be drawn against the petitioner, may be dropped.
The rules of natural justice as are ingrained in the statute prescribe dual requirement. First with respect to submission of written reply and the second with respect to oral hearing. Failure to avail one opportunity may not lead to denial of the other. The two tests have to be satisfied independently.
Thus, no useful purpose may be served in keeping this petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. The order impugned has been passed contrary to the mandatory procedure. The deficiency of procedure is self apparent and critical to the out-come of the proceedings.
Matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (1) TMI 105
Seeking to direct the Respondent/Ministry of Heavy Industries to issue a GST Concession Certificate “the Certificate” for enabling Petitioner to purchase a four-wheeler - HELD THAT:- Respondent shall resolve the issue pertaining to error in the website enabling the Petitioner to submit his application for grant of GST Concession Certificate on time.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 104
Depreciation whether claimed or not foisted upon the assessee even prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to S. 32 (1) with effect from 1.04.2002 - HELD THAT:- Question No. 1 is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ACIT vs. G.E. Lighting (I.) (P.) Ltd [2023 (6) TMI 1179 - SC ORDER] held that Explanation 5 to section 32 (1) would be applicable prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2002. Therefore, Assessment year 2001-02 would not be covered by the Explanation 5. We therefore, answer Question No. 1 in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Depreciation whether claimed or not on notional basis to be reduced from the profit of eligible industrial undertakings for the purpose of calculating deduction under Chapter VIA - HELD THAT:- Question No. 2 is covered in favour of the Revenue as per the decision of Plastiblends India Ltd [2017 (10) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT] as held any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected. The assessees/appellants want 100% deduction, without taking into consideration depreciation which they want to utilise in the subsequent years. This would be anathema to the scheme u/s 80-IA which is linked to profits and if the contention of the assessees is accepted, it would allow them to inflate the profits linked incentives provided u/s 80-IA of the Act which cannot be permitted.
Export profits earned and claimed as deductible u/s. 80 HHC includes profits earned by the New Industrial Units (whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s.80IA and 80IB - Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not allowing deduction u/s.80HHC as well as 80IA of the Act on the same gross total income without reducing each other? - HELD THAT:- Question Nos. 3 and 4 are also covered in favour of the Revenue in view of the decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Atul Intermediates [2014 (4) TMI 676 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the decision of Micro Labs Ltd [2015 (12) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT] Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not right in law in confirming that the export profits earned and claimed as deductible u/s. 80 HHC includes profits earned by the New Industrial Units (whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s.80IA and 80IB of the Act.
Deduction u/s.80IA of the Act on the New Power Plant - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd [1977 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] while considering the issue regarding entitlement to the exemption claimed under section 15C (2) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which is peri materia to section 80IA of the Act Tribunal was right in law in not allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act on the installation of the new turbine by the assessee being a new power plant by not treating the same as new industrial undertaking within the meaning of the proviso of section 80IA of the Act. We therefore, answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2025 (1) TMI 103
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - interest earned by a co-operative credit society from other co-operative societies/banks - HELD THAT:- The law is now well settled that any co-operative credit society is not holding banking license is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) in view of Judgment in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT] and The Mavilayi Service Cooperative [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus, we hold that assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) that all its income is from members and the reason given by the ld. AO that income / interest has been earned from deposits made in the co-operative banks, therefore, same is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P. The same is also covered by the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd[2024 (11) TMI 423 - ITAT MUMBAI] Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for both the years.
-
2025 (1) TMI 102
Disallowance u/s 80(P)(2)(a) (i) and 80P(2)(d) - interest had been received from co-operative banks - HELD THAT:- As in the case of PCIT vs. Annasaheb Patil [2023 (5) TMI 372 - SC ORDER] held that assessee being a credit society are entitled for exemption u/s. 80P(2) and they cannot be termed as public co-operative banks and therefore, Section 80P(4) shall not be applicable. Admittedly, here in this case the interest had been received from co-operative banks and law is well settled that credit co-operative society investments in co-operative bank claimed as allowable u/s.80P(2) because co-operative banks are also registered under co-operative society. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier year precedents for A.Y.2017-18 [2024 (4) TMI 1169 - ITAT MUMBAI] the grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 101
Ex-part assessment - assessee has made some unexplained investment for purchase of property - addition was made u/s. 69 and tax was charged u/s. 115BBE @ 60% - for addition made in her hand, it has been stated that her son, who was non-resident and was employed in USA had sent the money from US to buy the properties in his father’s and mother’s name - HELD THAT:- Since the assessment has been decided exparte, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored for the limited purpose that in so far as investment in one property which has been accepted to be invested by her son Shri Gajanan Sudhir Hotkar, then no addition should be made; and secondly, as regards other property AO is directed to verify whether this property has been purchased from the funds / sources given by her son and if that is the case then, no addition should be made. For this limited purpose, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. Jurisdictional AO (JAO) and assessee should comply with the notice and substantiate the source from her son for the purchase of second property for Rs. 30,00,000/-.
Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (1) TMI 100
Bogus purchases - GP Rate estimation - AO had applied GP rate of 12.5% on the purchases - HELD THAT:- Once the assessee had provided the details of corresponding sales on such purchases, delivery challans and the quantity of purchases alongwith payments made through banking channels backed by invoices, then without rejecting the books of accounts or corresponding sales, the trading results and Gross Profit cannot be disturbed. The sole reliance has been placed on the statement of one person who was handling affairs of these two companies and that he was providing bogus bill, addition has been made by applying higher GP rate. Nowhere has it been pointed out that in his statement he has given the name of the assessee or stated that assessee was also provided any kind of accommodation bill.
Once the quantitative details of purchase and sales which tallies with the trading results and overall gross profit has been accepted and corresponding one to one sale of the purchases made from these parties alongwith delivery challans has been shown, then, no addition can be made by applying any kind of GP rate.
As noted above, CIT (A) in A.Y.2016-17 has deleted the addition and in A.Y.2018-19 he has applied GP rate of 0.88% by taking difference. This difference for making addition on account of GP rate of 0.88% is not justified when there is no such finding that there is some discrepancy in the purchases and sales - The entire addition made by the ld. AO and partly confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is deleted. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 99
Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 - unexplained investment u/s 69 - legitimacy of additions in the re-assessment proceedings dehors the reasons recorded - AO alleged assessee has purchased certain immovable property (particulars not provided) as a co-sharer - HELD THAT:- As alleged that the investment has not been disclosed in the inquiry proceedings. The allegation of escapement was also made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Another allegation of escapement arose towards under valuation of immovable property sold.
AO however, while framing the assessment has made additions towards purchase of agricultural land, the payment of which was made through bank account. The aforesaid transaction is unconnected to the allegation of escapement in the reasons recorded. AO had made another additions u/s 69 towards purchase of agricultural land where the payment was made through banking channel which again is not shown to be connected to the allegations made in the reasons recorded. The stamp duty paid on the purchases made amountingis yet another addition made in the re-assessment order which again is wholly unconnected to the allegations of escapement in the reasons recorded.
Thus, where the ground on which the jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act was exercised have not been reckoned and acted upon in the re-assessment proceedings and no additions were carried out for any of such ground recorded, the AO could not make additions on an altogether different ground which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him.
Revenue could not controvert the fact that the additions on the points derives its genesis from the ground taken in the reasons recorded. In the light of the settled position of law, we find strong force in the plea of the assessee for reversal of the additions made.
Also potency in the plea of the assessee that reasons recorded are plagued by the vice of being vague, non-descript and unintelligible. The reasons recorded do not identify the immovable property purchased at a certain consideration. Same is the case with reference to other immovable properties referred in the reasons recorded.
Mere reference of purchase of immovable property without specifying the particulars do not provide cause of action u/s 147. The issuance of reopening notice based on vague particulars is unsustainable as held in CIT vs Insecticide India Ltd [2013 (5) TMI 691 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 98
Addition u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE - Reliance on WhatsApp chat - HELD THAT:- We find the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 131(1) on 17-06-2021 while replying to question no. 9 when the very same WhatsApp chat was confronted to him, had clearly stated that Omaxe Limited was not paying the installments and interest due to it. Accordingly, the assessee had merely stated in that WhatsApp chat that Rs 85.40 lakhs is due towards installment and since the TDS portion of Rs 30 lakhs was not deposited by Omaxe Limited, due credit for the same was not given to the assessee by the income tax department and accordingly the assessee insisted for TDS portion of Rs 30 lakhs to be deposited to the account of the Central Government. After constant follow up, the same was duly done by Omaxe Limited and due credit of TDS was indeed given to the assessee.
There is no dispute that credit of TDS of Rs 30 lakhs was given to the assessee by the income tax department and hence the statement of the assessee in Question No. 9 and the reply given by the assessee vide letter dated 25-3- 2022 assumes greater importance and had to be accepted as correct because the deductor (i.e. Omaxe Limited) having paid Rs 30 lakhs to income tax department would not come forward to pay the same Rs 30 lakhs to assessee again. Hence it could be safely concluded that the alleged sum was never paid by Omaxe Limited to the assessee and the said sum was never received by the assessee from Omaxe Limited or from any other party.
Accordingly the assessee cannot be held to be the owner of such money of Rs 30 lakhs and hence the provisions of section 69A of the Act per se cannot be pressed into service. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs 30 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are hereby allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 97
Penalty u/s 271DA as barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute of the clinching factual position that the same had been initiated in the assessment order dated 21.12.2020 itself and consequential order herein was passed on 26th July, 2023. That being the case, it admittedly does not satisfy the clinching statutory condition of “six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated”.
Although the department has indeed sought to get out of the rigor of the impugned limitation period, the factual position which goes unrebutted is that the impugned penalty order is very well passed beyond limitation. See TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. [2024 (11) TMI 506 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 96
Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) - difference between the Fair Market Value and the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the agricultural land - HELD THAT:- As undisputed that the impugned transaction was carried out on 01.08.2012 i.e. in financial year 2012-13. Thus, in such circumstances, the provisions prior to the amendment would squarely apply and, therefore, the AO could not have legally brought this transaction within the ambit of tax.
The observation of the First Appellate Authority, that the transaction was without consideration, is also incorrect, inasmuch as, it is undisputed that the assessee had parted with a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards consideration. We find merit in the issue raised on behalf of the assessee and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct the AO to delete the impugned.
-
2025 (1) TMI 95
Levy of surcharge @ 37% - surcharge on income including interest u/s 234F - reason given by the Addl./JCIT(A) is that the tax liability of the assessee has to be computed by maximum marginal rate and, therefore, surcharge is applicable as per section 2(29(c) - HELD THAT:- Maximum marginal rate is rate of income tax, which includes surcharge if any, applicable in relation to the highest slab of income in the case of individual/AOP/Company as specified in the Finance Act. Hence, the tax rate on surcharge is applicable on the basis of slab rate provided under the Finance Act.
The tax rate and surcharge are applicable on the basis of slab rate provided under the Finance Act of the relevant year. The first schedule to the Finance Bill, 2022, which is applicable in the present case in hand, which provides for rate of income tax for the year on the persons including the HUF/AOP/Company/individual or association of persons, wherein slab rates for levy of tax of rate have been provided.
The surcharge is leviable only when the amount of income tax is computed where the total income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs.
But in the case on hand, the return of income is only Rs. 1,27,095/-, so on this income, income tax shall be charged at maximum marginal rate in terms of section 164 of the Income Tax Act. For levying the surcharge, it is necessary that the slab of income, which is chargeable to tax is exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs and above.
Therefore, view taken by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) is against the law and cannot be sustained. Therefore, direct AO that there could not be any surcharge levied on the income tax since income of the assessee is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 94
Addition u/s 68 - bogus share transactions - share premium received by the assessee - onus to prove - HELD THAT:- As sufficient evidences were filed by the assessee with regard to establishing the identity of the investors, their credit worthiness and ultimately the genuineness of the transaction.
In case of issues like investments through preferential shares, the initial onus is on the AO to allege that the transaction is somehow suspicious and for that, some independent inquiry should have been made rather than to point out shortcomings or lacunae alone in whatever evidences filed by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction. It is pertinent to mention that the fact that certain share capital were received from PI Opportunities Fund-I and PI Opportunities Fund-II being SEBI registered venture capital funds. AO himself had deleted the addition and same go to show that the investors had taken a prudent call.
Then Investors included Mrs. Renu Munjal of Hero Group which is the largest two-wheeler manufacturer of India, Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. is an multinational manufacturer of automotive components with the market capitalization of over Rs. 1 crore. Makesense Technologies Ltd. is a company incorporated in 2010 which has professionals on board who include promoters of prominent recruitment portal, Naukri.com. Thus to doubt their investments in assessee company to be not genuine required, more than suspicion.
Valuation of the shares - Valuation has been done by Resurgent India Ltd., a category-1 SEBI registered merchant banker and there was no effort of the Revenue authorities to cite any deficiency or discrepancy except for questioning the same on the basis of the fact that the report was prepared on the information provided by the assessee company.
The law is now almost settled that the assessee’s choice of method of valuation of shares and the valuation report prepared by merchant banker cannot be disturbed merely on suspicion or by pointing out lack of data.
Directions of the ld.CIT(A) for making additions in regard to premium received from PI Opportunities Fund-I and PI Opportunities Fund-II on the basis that the assessee company is not a venture capital undertaking, we are inclined to accept the contentions of the ld. counsel that under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the term 'venture capital undertaking' has been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation to said section as being defined in section 10(23FB).
The assessee, during the relevant assessment year, was a domestic company, not listed on any stock exchange in India and engaged in the business of providing insurance related services. Thus, the assessee qualified to be a 'venture capital undertaking' in terms of the provisions of section 10(23FB), implying thereby that the provisions of section 56(2) (viib) of the Act were not applicable in the present matter qua receipt of share capital/premium from SEBI registered Venture Capital funds. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 93
Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - as argued addition is not based on any incriminating material and rather it is based on 3rd party investigation report - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) has passed a correct order wherein, it is abundantly clear that assessment u/s. 153A of the Act and in case of 153A of the Act assessment addition has to be made on the basis of incriminating material found during search.
But in this case, CIT(A) has clearly brought out that addition was not done on the basis of any incriminating material found during search. In this view of the matter, we find that CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order, as supported by the decision of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] wherein as expounded that no addition can be made when the assessment framed u/s. 153A dehors incriminating material found during the search. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 92
Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - excessive payments made to related or associate concerns - HELD THAT:- We hereby quote CBDT landmark Circular 6-P dated 6.7.1968 that the purpose of the impugned statutory provision is to check evasion of tax through excessive or unreasonable payments to related or associate concerns. Cas law in Sigma Research & Consulting Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (4) TMI 290 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 208 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] also settle the issue against the department that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable when both the payer and payee are assessed at the same rate in light of the foregoing circular. We accordingly delete the impugned section 40A(2)(b) disallowance in very terms. Assessee in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 91
Revision u/s 263 - validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as per AO has not made necessary enquiries and ought to have taxed the investment made by the assessee in share and securities - HELD THAT:- When the AO having recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment and having formed a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment, but not made any addition in the reassessment proceedings, in respect of the issue that is the subject matter of reopening. Thus the very basis of formation of belief by the AO vanishes.
AO could not have framed any reassessment per se. Logically the Ld. AO ought to have dropped the reassessment proceedings instead of passing a separate reassessment order. Thus the reassessment order per se framed by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore any consequential Revision proceedings thereon to revise the assessment is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed as held in the case of CIT Vs. Software Consultants [2012 (2) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
In the case of CIT Vs. Mohammed Juned Dadani [2013 (2) TMI 292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that the ground on which reopening of assessment was based and no addition was made by the AO in the order of reassessment, he could not make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 90
Levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB - allegation of defective notice - non mentioning of clear charge/default - additional income offered pursuant to the search treated as “undisclosed income”- whether non-mentioning of specific limb in the penalty show cause notice for which penalty proceeding u/s. 271AAB of the Act is initiated on the assessee would become fatal to the penalty proceeding per se? - HELD THAT:- From the notices it is very clear that the Ld. AO had not mentioned the specific limb on which the penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB is sought to be initiated by him. The ratio laid down in decision of R. Elangovan [2021 (4) TMI 1131 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] squarely applies to the case before us wherein held AO should point out to the assessee as to under which of the three clauses, he chooses to proceed against the assessee so as to enable the assessee to give an effective reply. Since the same has not been mentioned, the assessee has been denied reasonable opportunity to put forth their submissions.notice is absolutely vague and none of the irrelevant portions had been struck off nor the relevant portions had been marked or indicated. Hence, the Tribunal is right in observing that the penalty could not have been levied based on such defective notice and more particularly, when the assessee has been strenuously canvassing the jurisdictional issue from the inception. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 89
Rectification of mistake - treatment of fertilizer subsidy as capital receipts - The assessee filed rectification application after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding allowability of subsidy as capital receipt - AO has rejected the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 - CIT(A) held that the fertilizer subsidy received by the assessee in terms of the NBS policy during the year under consideration is not an income and same was treated as capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
HELD THAT:- Identical issue on similar fact in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 has been adjudicated by the [2021 (8) TMI 982 - ITAT MUMBAI] in favour of the assessee as held that the scheme was mainly to attract the investment in the industry and the purpose test is that the attraction of new players in the industry and also attracts the existing players to bring new investment. How the benefit of scheme is passed on to the industry matters. Sometime, Govt. introduces direct concession in the investments or introduces mechanism in relation to the ultimate achievement of the objects of the scheme. In this scheme, the ultimate object is to make available the required fertilizers and at appropriate price to the farmers, this can be achieved only by bringing new investments in the industry.
This is a recurring issue in the case of the assessee which has already been adjudicated by the ITAT in favour of the assessee as discussed supra in this order therefore following the decision of the ITAT and other judicial findings as elaborated in the findings of ld. CIT(A) we do not find any merit in this appeal of the revenue therefore the same stand dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 88
Revocation of customs broker license - forefeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - submission of forged graduation degree, at the time of applying for grant of the license, had submitted a forged graduation degree. Raj Kumar was, accordingly, asked to submit attested copy of the graduation degree and Raj Kumar did submit a self-attested copy of the graduation degree.
Forged degree or not - HELD THAT:- On a complaint received by the department, a query was made by the department from the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut regarding the genuineness of the graduate degree which the appellant had submitted to the department at the time of seeking appointment as a Customs Broker. The University, in no uncertain terms, informed the department that the details given in the graduate degree were not as per the University enrollment records or the confidential records. At the instance of the appellant the University again sought confirmation of the earlier report sent by the University and the University again informed the department that the earlier information given by the University was correct. The appellant has not produced any document from the University to substantiate that the graduate degrees submitted by the appellant is a genuine degree and only a bald assertion has been made by the appellant that the graduate degree submitted by the appellant is not forged. The finding recorded by the Commissioner that the graduate degree submitted by the appellant is a forged degree, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.
Effect of such a forged graduate degree on the Customs Broker License issued to the appellant - HELD THAT:- Once it is found that the graduation degree obtained by the appellant is a forged degree, the appellant clearly did not satisfy the essential requirement contained in clause 5(f) of the 2013 Regulations for appointment as a Customs Broker.
The 2018 Regulations came into effect from 14.05.2018. When the complaint was received by the department against the appellant regarding the graduation degree, the 2018 Regulations had come into force. These Regulations supersede the 2013 Regulations, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession. Under regulation 1(3) of the 2018 Regulations, the 2018 Regulations shall apply to a Customs Broker who had been licensed either under the 2018 Regulations or under the earlier 2013 Regulations. Regulation 14 of the 2018 Regulations deals with revocation of license. It is in accordance with regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and action was taken after the appellant was provided adequate opportunity by the enquiry officer and after the appellant was provided an opportunity to submit comments to the report submitted by the enquiry officer.
Whether an applicant who had submitted a forged graduation degree, which degree is an essential requirement for appointment as a Customs Broker, can be permitted to continue as a Customs Broker? - HELD THAT:- In M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS SHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR [2022 (4) TMI 1423 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court observed that an employee who has produced a fake and forged mark sheet at the initial stage of appointment cannot be trusted by the employer.
A person who has a submitted a forged graduation degree to seek appointment as a Customs Broker, therefore, should not be permitted to work as a Customs Broker - Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances Courts should not perpetuate the fraud.
In UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS, [2000 (3) TMI 1077 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court again observed that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.”
Conclusion - The inevitable conclusion, therefore, that follows from the aforesaid discussion and the decisions is that the appellant who had been granted a Customs Broker License on the basis of a forged graduation degree cannot be permitted to continue to work as a Customs Broker - The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that action could have been taken only under the 2013 Regulations and not under the 2018 Regulations cannot also be accepted.
There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Commissioner revoking the Customs Broker License of the appellant and forfeiture of the security deposit and also imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant - appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
