News Update

I-T - Anything made taxable by rule-making authority u/s 17(2)(viii) should be 'perquisite' in form of 'fringe benefits or amenity': SCCus - Drawback - Revenue contends that appeal of exporter ought to have been dismissed by Tribunal as not maintainable since correct remedy was filing a revision application with Central government - Appeal disposed of: HCCus - CHA - AA has clearly brought out the modus adopted by the appellant and how he was a party to the entire under valuation exercise - Factual finding affirmed by Tribunal - No question of law arises for consideration: HCGST - Proper officer has not applied his mind while passing the order; confirmed demand by opining that reply is not satisfactory - Proper Officer is directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against petitioner pursuant to impugned order: HCGST - Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion - Non-application of mind - Order set aside and matter remitted for re-adjudication: HCGST - Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue - Pragmatic view needs to be taken to permit petitioner to carry on his business: HC86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveTax Refund Conundrum - Odyssey of Legal MisstepsI-T- AO not barred from issuing more than one SCN; Fresh SCN seeking information is not without jurisdiction, more so where HC itself directed re-doing of assessment: HCMurthy launches Capacity Building on Design and Entrepreneurship programCash, liquor & drugs worth Rs 110 Cr seized from Jharkhand ahead of pollsI-T- Appeal before CIT(A) (NFAC) is rightly dismissed where it has been delayed by over one year without just & reasonable cause: ITATPoll-induced stress: 2 Bihar officials die of heart attack at polling boothsSixth Edition of Commandants' Conclave held in PuneSome Gujarat villages keep away from polls over unfulfilled demands from governmentI-T- Re-assessment unsustainable, where based on third party statements & not corroborated by incriminating evidence: ITATRoof-hugging inflation nudges Argentina to print first lot of 10,000 notes of pesoI-T- Re-assessment invalidated where triggerred by change of opinion, on account of being based on material already available during original assessment: ITATInvestigation finds presence of ‘boys club’ strands of culture at American bank regulatorST - Civil work for construction of tower in port area, is exempt from tax as per Notfn No 25/2007-ST; constructing draining pipes for municipal corporation is not commercial activity & so no Service Tax is payable thereon: CESTATUS alleges Russia shipping oil to North Korea more than UN-fixed quotaCus - That appellants were aware of dutiable nature of Gold found from baggage & of procedure for declaration at Customs, reveals intent to smuggle said Gold without payment of tax - conditions for valid import of Gold not satisfied either; absolute confiscation upheld: CESTATUS cancels licence to some firms found exporting materials to HuaweiCX - Excise duty is determines based on how goods are cleared - What happens to goods post their removal, is not manufacturer's lookout, unless manufacturer is involved in fraud or wilful mis-declaration: CESTATRenewables accounted for 30% of global power supply in 2023: StudyCX - Manufacturer of Single Sugar Phosphate (SSP) meant for agricultural use, cannot be held liable for use of SSP for industrial purposes, by a tertiary purchaser of SSP: CESTATCLAT 2024 exams to be held on Dec 1ST - Since the demand itself is not sustainable, question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise: CESTAT
 
I-T - Search Year is to be treated within block period and assessment should be framed u/s 153C only after issuing proper notice: ITAT

 

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, SEPT 29, 2018: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether the year of search is to be considered within the block period of six AYs and assessment should be framed u/s 153C only after issuing proper notice. And the verdict is YES.

Facts of the case

The assessee-company earned income from business and other sources and filed its original return declaring total income of around Rs 2.08 cr. A search and seizure operation was conducted on one M/s Krrish Group of cases and also a survey was also carried out on the business premises of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee in response to notice u/s 153A(1) (a) r.w.s 153C filed revised return declaring total income of around Rs. 2.22 cr. Thereafter, the assessment was framed at around Rs. 5.22 cr by making addition of Rs.3 cr as surrendered amount not incorporated in the return of income. On assessee's appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the decision of the AO. Therefore, the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal and also moved an application for admission of additional grounds contending that the jurisdiction for framing the assessment in question was wrongly assumed and the same was without jurisdiction, illegal and unsustainable in law.

On appeal, the Tribunal held that,

++ search was conducted on Krrish Group of cases on 09.11.2011. The impounded documents have been received by the A.O. on 29.08.2013. The satisfaction under section 153C have been recorded on 03.10.2013. The A.O. passed the assessment order under section 153B(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, considering the assessment year under appeal i.e., A.Y. 2012-2013 to be the year of search. However, the First Proviso to Section 153C of the I.T. Act provides that the 6 assessment years for which assessments or re-assessments could be made under section 153C of the I.T. Act, would also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing-over of the assets or documents to the A.O. of the assessee. Therefore, the 6 assessment years under section 153C of I.T. Act in the case of assessee would be A.Y. 2008-2009 to 2013-2014. The A.O, therefore, shall have to pass the assessment order under section 153C of the I.T. Act. However, A.O. has not issued any notice under section 153C of the I.T. Act before initiating the proceedings against the assessee which is also admitted by the A.O. in reply to the assessee under RTI Act. The Amendment in Section 153C of the I.T. Act by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to the effect that block period for the person in respect of whom the search was conducted as well as the "other person" would be the same six assessment year immediately preceding the year of search is prospective in nature. The issue have been dealt in detail by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd. and by ITAT, Delhi, B-Bench, in the case of Empire Casting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, C.C.2, New Delhi and Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT. The A.O, therefore, should have framed the assessment under section 153C of the I.T. Act in the case of the assessee and at the time of initiating the proceeding against the assessee, should have issued notice under section 153C of the I.T. Act which have not been done in this case. The issue of notice under section 153C is mandatory and a condition precedent for taking action against the assessee under section 153C of the I.T. Act. The assessment order, therefore, vitiate, void, illegal and bad in law and cannot be sustained.

(See 2018-TIOL-1669-ITAT-DEL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.