Cash payments to liquor dealers to maintain su􀁹icient quantity of stock doesn't call for sec. 40A(3) disallowance

Facts:

a) Assessee engaged in the business of country liquor had made cash purchases from two parties 'A' and 'P'.

b) Since, the payments for the purchases were exceeding Rs. 20,000, Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed said payments by invoking provisions of section 40A(3).

c) Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of the AO and upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal before the tribunal. 

The tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:

1) The primary object of enacting section 40A(3) is two folds, firstly, putting a check on trading transactions with an intent to evade the liability to tax on income earned out of such transaction and, secondly, to inculcate the banking habits amongst the business community.

2) Apparently, this provision is directly related to curbing of the evasion of tax and inculcating the banking habits in business community.

3) In the instant case, assessee was the only authorized dealer in the area for the supply of country liquor to authorized Excise vendors. He was to keep sufficient stock of country liquor as prescribed by the Excise Department and in case stock fell short of the prescribed limit, the department used to impose penalty.

ITAT sounds note of caution for frivolous appeal by revenue; it damages public faith

Filing of appeal with complete knowledge of its fate by the Revenue only reflects the mischievous adamancy to attempt to mislead the Tribunal and waste the time of the Court and the officers concerned.

Facts:

1)    CIT(A) on its first remand order dated 06.06.2012 had accepted the application filed by assessee seeking permission to file additional evidence which was objected to by Assessing Officer (AO).

2)    On 22.06.2012 CIT(A) issued second remand report directing AO to verify the claim of assessee as same was unverified.

3)    In the second remand report, AO admitted the assessee’s claim and based on such remand report CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68.

4)    Still, revenue filed appeal before tribunal referring to the fact that the relief was granted by CIT(A) on the basis of first remand report dated 06.06.2012 thereby consciously ignoring making reference to the second remand report dated 22.06.2012 before the tribunal.

Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:

a)    Filing of an appeal by an Assessing Officer ('AO') is a right which is vested in him by the statue. However, same should be exercised by applying proper due diligence in order to avoid any inappropriate litigations.

b)    Since the claim had been given up in the second remand report by the AO himself in second remand report, he could not claim to be aggrieved by the findings arrived at relying upon his own remand report. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's claim based on the strength of the second remand report. Reference to this material document, i.e., second remand report in the grounds raised by revenue was curiously missing. This omission appeared to be deliberate and led us to conclude that the revenue had consciously indulged in meritless litigation.

c)    Once the AO in second remand report had already communicated that the enquiries made after issuing notices under Section 133(6) to the parties/persons who had confirmed the assessee's version and the AO concluded that the loans taken stood verified. No further legitimate grievance could be said to have remained for examination by the AO.

d)    This deliberate, mischievous and selective reference to facts by such responsible persons grievously damages the public faith and belief in the honest fair play of the tax administration.

e)    Filing of appeal with complete knowledge of its fate by the Revenue only reflects on revenue’s attempt to mislead the Tribunal and waste the time of the Court and the officers concerned.

f)    Departmental officers had willfully and deliberately failed to exercise their powers using their minds as was required of them as per law and has abused government machinery to initiate a litigation which entailed financial costs and tarnished the image of the Department and also strained the government resources. - ACIT v. R.P.G. Credit & Capital Ltd. [2015] 60 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi - Trib.)

I-T authorities can collect relevant info to check tax evasion; HC upholds constitutional validity of sec. 133(6)

High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of amendment made to section 133(6) by the Finance Act, 1995 which widened the scope of the said section and gave power to AO to call for information not only in case of 'pending proceedings' but also as a part of the enquiry as said amendment was brought in to tackle tax evasion.

Facts:

a)The income tax authorities had issued notice to petitioner ('Co-Operative Bank'), asking it to furnish details of cash deposit in 'Savings Bank Accounts', aggregating to Rs.5 lakhs and details of payment of interest exceeding Rs.10,000/- to the depositors.

b)Consequently, the petitioner filed the instant writ to challenge the constitutional validity of section 133(6) which empowered the tax authorities to call for information not only in case of 'pending proceedings' but also as a part of the enquiry.

c)The petitioner contended that rights of privacy is an integral part of Article 21 of the constitution of India, which in turn, was violated.

The High Court dismissed the writ by holding as under:

1)Even assuming that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, such fundamental right must be subject to restriction, on the basis of compelling 'public interest'.

2)There is no prohibition on the State in gathering information for preventing tax evasion and curbing black money as proceedings can be pursued against wrongdoers only on basis of some information.

3)It is well-settled principle that the 'taxation entry' confers powers upon the Legislature to legislate in matters 'ancillary or incidental', including the provisions for evasion of tax.

4)Thus, no case was made out for striking down section 133(6) or second proviso thereto as unconstitutional, in so far as they apply to inquiries when no proceeding is pending- Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India (2015) 53 taxmann.com 453 (Kerala)

Sec. 80-IB relief available even if buyer can convert flats into duplexes in excess of built-up limit after acquisition

Where supplying design to merge flats into a duplex in excess of limit of built-up area constituted only a marketing strategy to boost sale of flats and assessee constructed flats in accordance with plan approved by authorities it was entitled to deduction under section 80-IB.

Facts:

a) The assessee had formed an AOP for developing a property with two wings and each wing was to have 96 flats. All the flats were approved to be with the built up area of less than 1000 sq. ft. as prescribed in clause (c) of Explanation to section 80-IB(10).

b) There was a survey action under section 133A and the officers noted that flats were constructed in such a way that the said flats could be conveniently combined with the lower 1-BHK flats vertically in order to generate spacious duplex flats.

c) The built up area of each of the said duplex flat exceeded the stipulated area. Accordingly, the revenue officers opined that the assessee intended to sell 1 BHK flats as duplex flats. Thus, the AO held that the assessee was not eligible for Section 80-IB relief as it had violated the condition relating to the maximum stipulated area of the flat. Further, the CIT(A) upheld the opinion of AO.

On appeal, the Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:

1) Impounding of the brochure with details of method of merger of 1-BHK flats into a duplex, could not be used against the assessee as it only provided the design of merger. The fact was that the assessee got the approval for constructing impugned flats from the authorities and completed the construction as per the approved plans. In the instant case, from the approval stage till the stage of issuance of the completion certificate, there was no violation by the developer.

2) There was no evidence to suggest that it was the developer who had planned and generated duplex flats out of the 1-BHK flats and, then sold as such to the buyers.

3) The AO undertook the exercise of verification under section 133(6) and all the flat buyers responded to the said queries. Not even a single flat owner stated that the developer (‘assessee’) constructed those duplex flats.

4) The discrepancy of mere providing a hole for intended staircase for flat buyers and supplying of the design to merge flats into a duplex flat constituted a marketing strategy to boost the sale of the 1-BHK.

5) Thus, such a marketing strategy would not come in the way of granting deduction under Section 80-IB. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of the profits attributable to all the 1-BHK flats of the projects. – Poddar & Ashish Developers v. ITO [2014] 51 taxmann.com 505 (Mumbai - Trib.)