|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 324 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 224
Assessment u/s 153A - disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA - Sunstantial question of law or fact - ITAT deleted addition as no incriminating material was found during the course of search - HELD THAT:- An appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements.
A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread.
The Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT therewith by this Court is not warranted.
For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring consideration of this court. Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 223
Record for the purposes of Section 154 - Whether entire records of the assessee for all the assessment years and not pertaining to only the year under consideration? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal states that if at all the assessee was of the opinion that the contractual liability had been settled in the previous year relevant to AY 1998-99, it ought to have been made the claim in the return itself. This conclusion does not appeal to us as the petition u/s 154 has been filed solely for the reason that the claim was not made in the return of income.
The application of Section 154 would extend to situations such as the present where legitimate claims have been omitted to have been made, for a variety of reasons. Hence, the observations of the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the assessee on this ground are completely misconceived.
Directions of the Tribunal in order in the appeal filed for AY 1992-93, was not so unequivocal that the assessee could claim relief solely based on such directions - We agree. However, the appellant has not rested its claim solely on those observations but has been proactive in moving an application seeking rectification of Return for AY 1997-98. It was hence incumbent upon the assessing officer, while disposing the application u/s 154, to have looked into the plea for rectification on the merits thereof. If at all the AO wished to test the claim of the assessee and verify whether the amounts had actually been paid, necessary documentary evidence could well have been sought.
Tribunal states that the Assessing Authority has not tested whether the amounts were actually paid at the time of original assessment proceedings - This statement is again misconceived for the reason that there could be no verification of a claim that was never made by the assessee in the return of income. In fact, this is the very reason why the assessee has filed a petition for rectification. The object of Section 154 cannot be defeated by reason of such mechanical and technical objections.
As to what constitutes 'record' for the purposes of Section 154, undoubtedly the records of assessment would include the financials for the years in question and the books of accounts including ledgers. Hence, it cannot be said that the payment of surcharge in Financial Year 1996-97 was not a matter of record. If at all any break-up/details of payments were required, nothing prevented the authority concerned to have called for the same.
Since the records in question are more than two decades old, we are loathe to remit the matter to the authority for verification. In order to satisfy ourselves that the amount of surcharge had, in fact, been paid as claimed, we had called for supporting documents, and the assessee has produced ledger accounts that establish payment of a sum of Rs. 95,36,264/- that includes a sum of Rs. 65,22,000/-, being the subject payment on 20.11.1997. The documents have been made available to the learned standing counsel as well who has also been afforded opportunity to verify the same.
There is no dispute that the amount of surcharge was paid in the financial year relevant to the year in question, and for the detailed reasons set out herein above, we find that the order of the Tribunal impugned before us calls for intervention.
-
2025 (3) TMI 222
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice issues beyond the period of limitation prescribed under statute - HELD THAT:- It emerges that the Revenue has relied upon the information which was already available on record. Therefore, the reasons so recorded is not based on any new or tangible material. Revenue has merely re-verified its record pertaining to the case of the assessee.
If we perused the reply of the assessee which was filed at the time of framing of assessment u/s 143(3) of the act, the entire details with regard to deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A were produced. Thus, we believe that it is not failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts before the AO. The impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, is clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under the statute.
Change of opinion - AO has sought to reopen the assessment from the material already produced on record, meaning thereby, while issuing and recording of reasons, the AO was not having any new and / or tangible material in his possession. Thus, according to us, the assessment sought to be reopened on the material which was already available can be said to be change of opinion and the same is impermissible in the eye of law. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 221
Revision u/s 263 - Allowability of deduction u/s. 10AA challenged - AO's decision to allow deductions under Section 10AA on disallowance made u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- PCIT himself has given a finding in the notice that disallowance u/s. 10AA of the Act was made in the earlier years for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 which was allowed by the ITAT, however, the Department has not accepted the decision and filed appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which is currently sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court.
Therefore, once the Tribunal has taken a view in favour of the assessee on the issue of deduction u/s. 10AA, merely because the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court against the order of the Tribunal which is pending for decision, the order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous although it may be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Disallowance made by the AO u/s. 14A was allowed by him as deduction u/s. 10AA in light of the decision of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Therefore, once the AO has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 10AA on the enhanced disallowance u/s. 14A which is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the order cannot be held to be erroneous although it may be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Thus PCIT in our opinion is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 as order is certainly not erroneous lthough it may be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Since the twin conditions are not satisfied in the instant case, set aside the order of ld. PCIT and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 220
Classification as agricultural income - cultivation of mushroom falls within the purview of agriculture or not? - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. INVENTAA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [2018 (8) TMI 69 - ITAT HYDERABAD] held that “Hence as basic operations are performed by expenditure of human skill and labour on land by the assessee, which results in the raising of the “product” called “Edible white button mushroom” on the land and as this product has utility for consumption, trade and commerce, the income arising from the sale of this product is agricultural income and hence exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act”.
Thus, consistent with the view taken therein, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.
-
2025 (3) TMI 219
Rectification u/s 154 - denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA as all the conditions laid down u/s 80JJAA - HELD THAT:- The claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act being a controversial issue is beyond the ambit of provisions of section 154. It is pertinent to note that the scope of rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act is very limited and circumvented only to rectify the mistake apparent from record and cannot be extend ed to the issues which requires a long drawn reasoning and decisions.
The claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA cannot be disallowed without examining the relevant facts as well as law on the point. Accordingly disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act by the CPC u/s 154 of the Act is not valid as the said issue is beyond the scope of provisions of section 154 - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 218
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition of bogus expenses by rejecting the books - estimation of the profit at 40% of the turnover as reduced to 7% by the Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- Addition made by the A.O. was based on estimation at 40% of the turnover which was modified by the Appellate Authority to 7% in the present case. Therefore no question of levying Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is liable to be deleted, and we direct so to delete the same. Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 217
Revision u/s 263 - computation of depreciation and the treatment of additional depreciation carried forward from the preceding year - as per CIT AO has failed to examine the claim of depreciation made by the assessee as a consequence of claiming brought forward additional depreciation from earlier assessment year 2017-18, which has resulted in the assessee availing excess depreciation - PCIT held that brought forward additional depreciation from AY 2017-18 should have first been reduced from the opening WDV and thereafter current year’s normal and additional depreciation should have been computed for AY 2018-19.
HELD THAT:- Method of computation provided by the Pr. CIT is not correct as Section 32(1)(ii) provides that depreciation has to be charged on the written down value of any block of assets as per the rates prescribed.
Section 43(6)(c) of the Act provides that the written down value of a block of asset shall be computed by taking the WDV as on the opening date, which shall be increased by the actual cost of the assets acquired during the year and be reduced by the moneys payable in respect of assets sold during the year and no further adjustment is allowed to be made to the WDV computed as per the provisions of the said section.
It is on such WDV so computed that the depreciation has to be computed.
The format of income tax return utility notified by the CBDT, the amount of depreciation chargeable on plant and machinery is auto computed in Schedule DPM. An assessee is meant to submit the figure of opening WDV of the block, details of additions made during the year classified by the period for which such asset is put to use (more than or less than 180 days) and the details of assets sold during the year. Basis the aforesaid details submitted, the utility as conceived by the Income-tax Department, calculates the amount of normal and additional depreciation allowable on the block of asset.
No mechanism for the assessee to first compute and reduce the additional depreciation for the preceding year from the opening WDV and then compute the normal depreciation for the relevant year, as directed by the Ld. PCIT.
The said computation of depreciation, as provided in the income tax return utility, has also been found to be in consonance with the Clause 18 of the Tax Audit Report. If the method suggested by the Ld. PCIT in the impugned order were to be followed, in that case, the total depreciation allowable to the assessee, would be higher in subsequent years since the closing WDV would be higher. Being so, the assessee would be allowed higher depreciation is subsequent years.
There is no error in the depreciation claimed by the assessee, hence no case of order being erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue could be made out. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 216
Assessment u/s 153C - Addition u/s 69A - addition based on the seized digital ledger "Hazir Johri" - On perusal of seized data, among others, a ledger named “Sanmati 1586” allegedly pertaining to assessee was found - CIT(A) affirmed the additions made in the assessment order by observing that since the bank transactions found recorded in the seized ledger were correct and pertained to the assessee firm, it will not be appropriate to accept that the cash transaction mentioned in the same account did not pertain to the assessee - As argued that the seized ledger is a dumb document, in as much as it makes no accounting sense to merge the entries of unrelated parties into one ledger
HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the entries reflected in the said software pertains to other unrelated parties with the assessee. Admittedly, the said ledger is a combined ledger account of various transactions pertaining to other unrelated parties with the assessee and contains few transactions pertaining to the assessee.
There is no concrete material brought on record by the lower authorities to implead assessee with all those transactions. Even for the transactions where assessee’s name was mentioned, the revenue was not able to bring any corroborative evidence to prove the nature of such transaction.
Hence it could be safely concluded that the assessee had given a plausible explanation about the contents of the said software. Further more, as rightly pointed out by the Ld.AR, there is no corroboration of those entries with the bills / vouchers, sales, stock registers etc, showing the cash sales to prove that the alleged cash sales belong to the assessee firm. Hence those entries cannot be relied upon for making an addition in the hands of the assessee.
As decided in the case of Anoop Kumar Soni [2023 (12) TMI 391 - ITAT DELHI]while adjudicating almost similar facts related to search on JBL, the Tribunal held that since the ledger found during the search “AP” contains the entries of parties other than assessee, then said ledger cannot be said to be belonging to assessee and addition made on the basis of assumption was deleted.
Thus, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee by placing any reliance on Hazir Johri Software. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 215
Assessment u/s 153C - Addition of on-money sum going by the contents of the seized material - HELD THAT:- Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground has to be declined only as the above seized document which is neither signed by the assessee nor its name is mentioned therein, could be held as “belonging” to it nor contents lead to any inference of actual on-money payment forming subject matter of addition in the assessee’s hands.
Unaccounted cash payment - AY 2007- 08 - CIT(DR) is indeed very fair in taking us to the assessment findings dated 30.12.2009 at pages 2 and 3 wherein same rough jottings and alleged map was seized from the searched person which is indeed in the nature of dumb document only in light of Girish Chaudhary,[2007 (5) TMI 176 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. We wish to reiterate here that the above seized document merely indicates some rates than pinpointing any specific on-money payment or receipt; as the case may be, involving the assessee.
Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly accepted the assessee’s contentions directed against the impugned addition.
Mandation to record satisfaction - AY 2008-09 Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that AO had recorded his section 153C satisfaction against the assessee. That being the clinching case, we quote section 153C(1) 1st proviso that the addition of search in such an instance is to be “construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person”, and hold that once the assessee’s assessment for the impugned assessment year 2008-09 was pending in light of its return filed on 02.12.2008 the departmental authorities could not have assessed it under the normal provisions u/s 143(3) going by Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd.[2024 (4) TMI 268 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Jasjit Singh [2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT]
Disallowing the assessee’s bad debts u/s 36 or business loss u/s 28 - CIT(A) has made it clear in his lower appellate discussion that the assessee had indeed made advances in the real estate and land purchases business which stood written off as the corresponding transactions could not be materialized. He accordingly concludes that the said claim indeed amounts to the assessee’s loss in the ordinary course of its business.CIT(DR) is indeed very fair in not disputing the assessee’s claim on merits regarding bad debts forming subject matter of addition before us. We thus reject Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground herein on merits as well.
-
2025 (3) TMI 214
Denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) - assessee, a trust, had not filed its original return of income for the relevant assessment year but had filed the return in response to a notice u/s 148 - HELD THAT:-Section 139(4C) of the Act, only mandates the filing of the return of income in specified circumstances by entities claiming their incomes as exempt under different provisions of the Act. Such section does not provide for denial of claim of exemption if the return of income is not filed.
Even otherwise, the income returned by the assessee and accepted by the AO amounts to only Rs. 1,00,760/-. Assessee being a trust has been assessed in the capacity of AOP which finds mention in the body of the assessment order also. The basic limit upto which incomes of AOP’s are not subject to tax, it was pointed out to us was Rs. 2,50,000/-. This was pointed out by assessee and not controverted by the DR. Even considering the provisions of section 139(4C) of the assessee, the assessee was not required to file any return of income.
Therefore, it is evident from the above discussion that the denial of claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) was not in accordance with the provisions of law. The order passed by the CIT(A) is therefore set aside. Appeal of the assesse is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 213
Reopening of assessment - notice after four years - disallowing deduction for payment of car hire charges - HELD THAT:- Reasons recorded do not spell out failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose fully and truly any material facts. In the contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant that specific query in relation to vehicle hiring charges was raised during the relevant assessment proceedings and in response to the same the Appellant had made disclosure of primary facts and furnished supporting documents during the assessment proceedings.
We note that during the assessment proceedings the Appellant had filed letter giving justification regarding car hiring charges paid to Shri Deepak More for hiring of three vehicles. Appellant had also filed Vehicle Hiring Agreement.
It is admitted position that reassessment proceedings have been initiated in the present case after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
As per Proviso to Section 147, no action can be taken for reopening after four years unless the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.
Since in the case before us in the reasons recorded there is nothing to indicate that reopening is sought on the ground of the failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly material facts, the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act cannot be sustained and is, therefore, held to be bad in law. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 212
Penalty imposed u/s 271E - violation of provisions of Section 269T by making repayment of a sum in cash - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer nowhere recorded satisfaction that it was a case of violation of provisions of section 269T calling for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act.
In Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City’s case [2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT] while dealing with penalty order u/s 271E of the Act, observed that in the fresh assessment order, no satisfaction was recorded regarding penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act, and that the AO had expressed therein only for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, it was held that the penalty levied u/s 271E of the Act could not be levied without recording of satisfaction in the assessment order as regards penalty under section 271E of the Act.
Thus, AO having not recorded satisfaction that it was a case calling for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E penalty order deserves to be set aside. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 211
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - onus to prove - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee not only disclosed the source of the credits reflected in its books of accounts but also furnished the assessment records of the creditor, demonstrating that the source of funds in the creditor’s hands had been subjected to scrutiny.
Assessee discharged its initial onus under Section 68, and any addition made without further investigation or rebuttal of the evidence provided by the assessee would be untenable in law.
We are of the considered opinion that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of credits in his books and consequently, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions after relying on various judgments made by the AO, and no further intervention is warranted under these circumstances. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 210
Addition u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE - assessee surrendered the additional stock so found during the course of survey - AO observed that the assessee has treated the surrendered income as business income in the Profit & Loss Account and the assessee has not given any explanation about the source of making the investments in purchase of excess stock
HELD THAT:- In the instant case as well, it is an admitted fact that the surrender on account of excess stock is of regular stock in which the assessee deals in and thus related to the business being carried on by the assessee. Further the stock so found is not physically distinguishable and there is as such no physical distinction between accounted stock and unaccounted stock and no such physical distinction was found by the Revenue either.
We therefore find that the difference in stock so found out by the authority has no independent identity and is in terms of value terms only, as evident from the surrender letter, which infact has formed the basis of findings of the AO, and thus part and parcel of entire sock therefore it cannot be said that assessee has an undisclosed asset which existed independently and thus what is not declared to the Department is receipt from the business operation and not any investment as it cannot be correlated with any specific asset and difference thus be treated as business income.
The amount representing the excess stock found during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of Section 69B of the Act and the same has to be assessed to tax under the head business income and in absence of any deeming provision the question of application of Section 115BBE does not arise and normal tax rate shall apply which has been applied by the assessee while filing the return of income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 209
Revision u/s 263 - A notice u/s 148 as issued to the assessee on the basis of an information that the assessee had deposited cash in his bank account during the year under consideration -
HELD THAT:- We have examined and perused the document i.e agreement to sell dt. 01/06/2011 and receipt dt. 11/06/2011 while it is true that basis land mentioned therein transaction of Rs. 4.5 lakh took place on 01/06/2011 and later got cancelled on 11/06/2011 can be no basis to dub the amount of Rs. 4.5 lakh as bogus entry to manipulate the availability of funds in order to explain the cash deposit made by the assessee in his bank account on 09/06/2011.
AO did not try to conduct any enquiries to ascertain the identity of Shri Sukhwinder Singh, his credit worthiness and genuineness of the given transaction; as the amount was returned by the assessee. The need to conduct enquiries would have arisen had the amount of Rs. 4.5 lakh would not have been returned by the assessee. The Ld. PCIT therefore has erred in law as in cash flow the result is NIL.
In the premises after examining the record, papers and proceedings of the impugned order as well as the original assessment order dt. 03/06/2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147/148 we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmities in the order of Ld. AO dt. 03/06/2019. We hold that due process of law with all rigorous were duly followed by the Ld. AO; appropriate notice(s) u/s 147/148, 143(2) and 142(1) were duly given and were received by the assessee.
The return of income was filed as an agriculturist on 25/04/2019 declaring net income as agriculture income. Detailed questionnaire were issued on 01/05/2019 for 15.05.2019 which were properly replied to by the assessee.
Assessee attended the assessment proceedings and it is recorded that AR furnished all requisite information / documents called for during the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AR furnished detailed reply alongwith documentary evidences of cash deposited in bank during the period under consideration which were duly examined and were placed on record.
Further upon many queries raised a yet another reply is on record dt. 22/05/2019 wherein it was highlighted that actual cash deposit is Rs. 16,91,000/- not Rs. 32,41,000/- as alleged in notice(s). It is expressly stated in the assessment order dt. 03/06/2019 that during the course of the assessment proceedings reply as well documents filed were examined. Queries were raised and were duly answered with supporting. The bank statement were verified and that after detailed examination of the case the income was assessed at returned income of Rs. 6710/- + Rs. 7,80,000/- as agriculture income. We see no infirmities with the assessment order of Ld. Ao dt. 03/06/2019.
The order is well merited and all due process of law has been followed. We therefore hold that such an assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of Section 263 Explanation 2 as due process was followed and all necessary verification and examination of documents in plausible and reasonable manner were done so. We do not see any unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the original assessment order impugned under section 263 and that the same cannot be clothed with erroneous and prejudicial charge by Ld. PCIT. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 208
Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 on account of the unexplained credits - search was conducted at the premises of Assessee husband - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the subject transactions recorded in the books of accounts of the husband of the appellant and also in the bank statement pertaining to the account of the assessee-appellant, it can safely be said that concerned transactions had already been recorded in the said record.
It is not in dispute that after the husband of the assessee-appellant had furnished Income Tax Return in the concerned assessment year, no such step was taken by the AO for scrutiny or reassessment.
Previously the income disclosed by the husband of the assessee-appellant was not doubted, including the said transactions, which have subsequently been picked up after search and seizure action. There is no explanation from the Department as to why no scrutiny was made regarding the said assessments while processing the ITR furnished by the husband of the assessee-appellant at the relevant time or within the prescribed period of limitation.
We find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant above- said 3 entries pertain to transfer of amounts to the assessee by the proprietorship concern being run by her husband and since the ledger did not indicate any financial implication, said entries could not be said to be unexplained cash credit, attracting the provisions of Section 68 of the Act.
Having record to the material placed on record by the assessee-appellant, before the AO as well as CIT(A) and before this Appellate Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned assessment framed by the AO and the impugned order passed by CIT(A) deserves to be set aside accordingly, same hereby set aside.
Whether statement of the assessee was the only material available against the assessee? - In this regard, suffice it to state that the Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned in the assessment order about any statement made by the assessee u/s 132 of the Act.
As mentioned here that subsequently, during pendency of the appeal, on behalf of the appellant an application came to be presented with the prayer seeking permission to raise three grounds mentioned therein.
First additional ground is that no DIN number having been generated as regards the impugned assessment order, same is nullity being non-est.
Second additional ground is that the impugned assessment order has not been digitally signed as per procedure prescribed by CBDT, same is non-est.
No prior approval, as mandated by section 153D of the Act was obtained and as such the impugned assessment has been framed without any jurisdiction - As it may be mentioned that as noticed above, the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and the impugned assessment framed by the AO deserve to be set aside, for the abovesaid discussion and reasons, the three additional grounds sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant for academic purposes, are not being taken up.
No other argument has been advanced before us.
-
2025 (3) TMI 207
Validity of assessment order as barred by limitation - assessment Order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B - HELD THAT:- We noted that the issue is very simple and there is no extension of time limit by CBDT or by Act in term of section 153(4)of the Act for completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the reference to TPO was made u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act on 13.09.2021 and who passed the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act on 28.01.2022.
Since the reference u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act was made to TPO, consequent to section 153(4), due date for passing of order get extended upto 31.03.2022 but in the present case, the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed vide order dated 30.09.2022, which is clearly barred by limitation.
No infirmity in the order of CIT(A) holding the assessment order as barred by limitation and we confirm the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, this jurisdictional issue of limitation is decided against the Revenue.
-
2025 (3) TMI 206
Violation of principles of natural justice - Seeking to forbear the second respondent from conducting adjudication pursuant to the SCN without acceding to the request made by the petitioners for cross examination of the persons and officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - HELD THAT:- No prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the light of the fact that as on date, the petitioner is having the benefit of interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notices to the respective petitioners to consider the petitioners' representation through their interim replies seeking for right of cross examination of the persons mentioned therein, on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, after affording one personal hearing to the petitioners. If the respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to cross examine the witnesses and if they decide to reject the petitioners' request, by passing a speaking order in respect of the request made by the petitioners that the petitioners are not entitled to cross examine the persons, they have a right to pass a final adjudication order pursuant to the issuance of the Show Cause Notices, on merits and in accordance with law.
The order passed on the petitioners' request seeking for cross examination has to be communicated to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of passing of such an order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 205
Illegal share transfer - Maintainability of petition - present petition is barred by delay and latches or not - suppression of material facts and continuance of the present petition would tantamount to an abuse of process of law or not - issues raised in the present petition are barred by Res Judicata or not.
Whether or not the present petition is barred by delay and latches? - HELD THAT:- The substratum of the dispute relates to illegal share transfer and the same has been litigated and reagitated time and again and no useful purpose will be served in oppressing the opposite parties herein. The only addition in the present petition is to create a “cause of action” seems to be that certain RTI applications have been made by various parties and no suitable response has been received with regard to them which seems to be more like an afterthought which has been introduced to create a fresh cause of action in order to make the present petition maintainable.
Even otherwise the present petition raises disputed question of facts thus a Writ Court not the appropriate remedy, especially given the fact that the Companies Act is a self-contained Code and in relation to matters therein, there is a specific bar from other Courts entertaining pleas which are the subject matter of the said Act. However, in the present scenario this Court deems it fit to go into other issues as well and does not incline to reject the present petition on the ground of maintainability alone.
Whether or not the present petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts and continuance of the present petition would tantamount to an abuse of process of law? - HELD THAT:- This Court cannot ignore the fact the Petitioners might be in cahoots with other setup unscrupulous persons who have earlier agitated the self-same issue guised as “public interest petitions”. Although a party is never precluded from raising genuine claims in collusion with others are indulging in blatant forum-shopping and are taking recourse to multiple parallel proceedings for the same subject matter. It is well-settled that re-litigation of the same matter itself amounts to an abuse of the process of law and ought to be nipped at the bud.
This Court in the given factual backdrop is constrained to hold that not only has there been a suppression of material facts but, in fact, there are persons who seem to be relentless in their pursuit to oppress Opposite Party No. 8 company for reasons best known to them. Such a fact cannot be lost sight of and is a matter of grave concern and needs to be dealt with sternly.
In the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [2007 (8) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Petitioners have dishonestly not disclosed the above material facts in the present writ petition. The Petitioners have abused the process of law by suppressing the aforesaid litigations. It is well-settled that writ remedy is an equitable remedy and since the Petitioners have not approached the court with clean hands it is appropriate that their challenge deserves to be rejected.
Whether the issues raised in the present petition are barred by Res Judicata? - HELD THAT:- . The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Celir LLP Vs Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors. [2024 (12) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT] has exhaustively dealt with the principle of Res Judciata/ Constructive Res Judicata and has propounded the “Henderson principle” as a corollary of Constructive Res-Judicata. It is therein been recognized that the is intrinsically tied to “issue estoppel” and “cause of action estoppel”.
The Supreme Court in the case of Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam [1964 (10) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT], clarified and highlighted the need to extend rule of constructive res judicata to writ proceedings. It was held that it would not be open to the party to take one proceeding after another and urge new grounds every time, and would be inconsistent with considerations of public policy.
The Petitioner No. 2 herein who had petitioned this Court earlier could have and ought to have relied upon the grounds with relation to the applications made to the registrar of companies (between 2013 to 2015) at the time of filing of that Writ Petition. After having not being done it would be impermissible to allow the same petitioners to urge the said facts which were otherwise had occurred at that point in time when that prior Writ Petition had been filed. That being the case, the instant case is squarely covered by the discussion here in above. The subsequent/ successive petition i.e. the present petition would be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata by applying the “Hendersen principle”.
Conclusion - This Court arrives at a clear and unequivocal conclusion that the present Writ Petition is not only liable to be dismissed at the very threshold on account of the principles discussed and issues framed hereinabove. But also, on account of the fact that the Petitioners have approached this court with unclean hands and the conduct of the petitioners herein leaves much to be desired. This Court can only express hope that the petitioners will be well advised not to indulge in such unbecoming practice of abusing the process of law in the future.
Petition dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
