×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various High Courts of India
These are the latest case laws decided by various High Courts of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
24-10-2019, SIDDHARTH EXPORT, Section 44AB, 271(1)(b), HIGH COURT OF DELHI
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
ITA 917/2019 & CM. APPLs. 46334-46335/2019
3. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) is directed against the common order dated 26.06.2018 (hereinafter the impugned order) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal (s) No. 7700/2017 for AY-2013-14 and 7752/2017 for AY-2014-15.
4. The appeal is accompanied with an application [CM. APPL. 46334/2019] seeking condonation of gross delay of 445 days in filing the appeal. The grounds and reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay are completely bereft of merits. This delay is sought to be justified on account of filing of a misconceived writ petition WP (C) No. 193/2019 to assail the impugned order of ITAT. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.07.2019, whereby, Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay to challenge the impugned order. The application offers no cogent explanation for the delay in approaching the court, except for narrating the fact of filing of the above noted writ petition, which does not help the petitioner under any circumstances. The writ itself was filed beyond the statutory period of filing the appeal and moreover, the same was withdrawn on the first day of listing and the Appellant cannot vindicate the delay for the above reason. The application thus deserves to be dismissed as it does not disclose any cogent ground or reason for seeking condonation. Nevertheless, we have also heard
the counsels on the merits of the case and find no ground to entertain the present appeal for the reasons stated hereinafter.
5. Common facts arising out of the two appeals before the ITAT [ ITA No. 7700/DEL/2017 & ITA No. 7752/DEL/2017] are that the Appellant - M/s Siddharth Export is a partnership firm, engaged in manufacturing and trading (export) of engineering and automobile spare parts since 2002. The assessee filed its income tax return declaring income of Rs. 44,36,580/- for the AY 2013-14 and Rs. 39,94,420/- for the AY 2014-15.
6. In respect of AY 2013-14, assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 26 lacs through three cheques as per details mentioned below:
7. The above noted cheques were issued by Ms. Jasmine Kochhar Kapoor, a citizen of GBR (United Kingdom), who is stated to be an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI). Assessee got its account audited under Section 44AB of the Act. As per the statutory requirement of tax audit under Section 44AB, mandatory disclosure was made under “Particulars of Loan accepted during the previous year 2012-13”, by annexing the audit report in Form 3CD, disclosing receipt of “unsecured loan” of Rs. 26 lacs from Ms. Jasmine Kochhar Kapoor, during the previous year.
8. Similarly, in respect of AY 2014-15, Appellant received an unsecured loan of Rs. 87 lacs through six cheques as per details mentioned below:
9. With respect to both the assessment years, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny under CASS, as per guidelines/procedure for selection of cases for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 18.09.2015 for AY 2014-15, followed by a questionnaire dated 04.07.2016 along with the statutory notice under Section 142 (1). Since there was no response to the above notices, follow-up was made by several telephonic calls. Pursuant thereto, the AR of the assessee appeared on 11.11.2016, 18.11.2016 and 28.11.2016 and filed submissions in part. The hearing was then adjourned to 01.12.2016, when assessee failed to appear. On 13.12.2016, on account of the aforesaid irregularity of non-attendance, a penalty under Section 271 (1) (b) was imposed. The assessee then submitted certain documents to