Uttarakhand HC dismisses
Hyundai's objections, holds that the appeal filed by
Revenue against ITAT ruling is within the time-limit prescribed u/s.
260A ; Hyundai contended based on RTI records that while the
Tribunal order had been served on CIT's office in
September, 2009, the tax department filed the appeal in HC only in July
2011, thereby resulting in the Revenue appeal being barred by limitation;
HC observes contradiction in the stand taken by assessee, where it is
stated at one place that the Tribunal order was 'dispatched' on
September 9, 2009 while at another place it is contended that the order
was 'served' on September 9; Accepting tax department's submission
that the order copy was not received on the said date, i.e. September
9, 2009 but only in March, 2011, HC goes on to observe
that “the respondent/assessee has not, apparently, made any efforts to
ascertain whether the impugned order, which is alleged to have been dispatched
on 09.9.2009, has actually been served, which could have been done by way of
making queries with the post-office.”; HC interprets ‘receipt’ u/s. 260A
to hold that “receipt is to be understood as meaning that there is a
duty also on the Tribunal to communicate the order to the person, who is
entitled to lodge the appeal.”; HC further rejects assessee's arguments
that sought to impute knowledge of the ITAT order on the
part of Revenue by virtue of it being a party to various writ
petitions & Sec. 263 proceedings, remarks that “it would not be
an actual accrual of cause of action to file an appeal as provided under law,
unless received.”; Also rejects assessee’s reliance on CBDT circular
of August, 2011, clarifies that the CBDT circular only contemplates that there
is duty to intimate the Tribunal about the change of jurisdiction if there
is one during the pendency of the appeal, which fact per se is not
established, moreover observes that it is not clear as to whether Circular
obliges the authority to follow it:HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bombay High Court Clarifies Tax Exemption Eligibility for Venture Capital Funds
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI is entitled to claim ...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
F.No.354/66/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs...
-
M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38....
No comments:
Post a Comment