2021-TIOL-228-HC-AHM-IT

Pr CIT Vs Moh Ltd

Whether addition u/s 68 cannot be made when nothing in hands of assessee can be considered unexplained cash credit – YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-227-HC-MAD-IT

RK Industries Vs ACIT

On appeal, the High Court finds that the assessee seeks settlement of the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. Hence the Court finds no reason to keep the present appeal pending. It directs the Competent Authority to consider the assessee's application under the Scheme & pass order expeditiously.

- Assessee's appeal disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-226-HC-KAR-IT

Manyata Promoters Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

On appeal, the High Court answers the issues raised in the present appeal, in favor of the assessee, considering the findings rendered by this Bench in another matter. Hence the present appeal is disposed off accordingly.

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-225-HC-MUM-IT

Siolim Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Vs CIT

Whether amount deposited by the assessee with IT Department in one appeal can be adjusted for assessed amount in another appeal by same assessee – YES: HC

- Assessee's writ allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-198-ITAT-PUNE

Brahman Sabha Karveer Vs CIT

Whether registeration u/s 12AA can be denied to the assessee merely because some of the objects of the assessee are religious in nature - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: PUNE ITAT

2021-TIOL-197-ITAT-DEL

Bulandshahr Development Authority Vs ACIT

Whether benefit of exemption u/s 11 to 13 can be allowed to assessee if registration u/s 12A has been restored by the Tribunal and till date this order has not been reversed by higher appellate forum - YES : ITAT

- Case Remanded: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-196-ITAT-MUM

Asset Motors Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether disallowance of interest on advances is not tenable, where such advances are wrongly presumed to have been made to the assessee's sister concerns - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-195-ITAT-DEL

A Design India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether payments towards PF & ESI warrant being disallowed, where they are made after their due date in their parent Acts, but before due date for filing I-T return - NO: ITAT

- Case remanded: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-194-ITAT-MUM

Id Info Business Services Ltd Vs ITO

Whether it is a fit case for remand where assessee's appeal is dismissed in limine by the CIT(A), without consideration of additional evidence going to the root of the case - YES: ITAT

- Case remanded: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-229-HC-AHM-VAT

Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

Whether administrative directions for fulfilling recovery targets for collection of revenue should not be at the expense of foreclosing remedies which are available to assessees for challenging the correctness of a demand - YES: HC

Whether remedies which are legitimately open in law to an assessee to challenge a demand cannot be allowed to be foreclosed by a hasty recourse to coercive powers - YES: HC

- Application disposed off: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-64-CESTAT-KOL

Vinayak Agro Industries Vs CCE

CX - The Appellant No. 1 is engaged in manufacture and sale of laminated spring leaves from its factory-cum-office premises and Appellant No. 2 besides being a Partner of Appellant No. 1 is also a Proprietor of M/s. Radhagopi Auto Industries and a Director in M/s. Maa Bhagwati Rerolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. - A SCN was issued alleging clandestine removal and under valuation by Appellant No. 1 - The entire case of revenue is based on data retrieved from Pen drives seized from residence of Appellant No. 2, alleged to be the Sales Ledger of Appellant No. 1 - The manner in which the Pen drives were seized and the retrieval of data (printouts) from the Pen drives along with its evidentiary value has been strongly agitated by Appellants - The seized Pen drives were not sealed with paper seal or otherwise as evident from Panchnama drawn at the residence of Appellant No. 1 - The computer printouts relied upon to uphold the charge of clandestine clearance were not obtained in conformity with mandatory conditions and safeguards laid down in Section 36B(2) & (4) of CEA, as these were not produced by a computer which was being used regularly to store or process the information during the period in dispute and Certificate referred to Section 36B(4) of Central Excise Act was also not obtained - The printouts from the Pen drives are neither co-relatable with the central excise invoices raised by Appellant nor corroborated by any independent evidence establishing clandestine manufacture or clearance - No efforts have been made by investigating agencies to establish the existence of any unaccounted manufacturing activity in the form of unaccounted raw material, shortage of stock, shortage of raw material/finished goods, excess consumption of electricity, unaccounted labour payments, interrogation of buyers/transporters or any incriminating record/document to suggest any flow back of cash - The revenue authorities have failed to discharge the burden of proving the serious charge of clandestine clearance or undervaluation with cogent and clinching evidence - The charge of clandestine removal/undervaluation cannot sustain on the basis of Pen drive data alone more so when the printouts have not been obtained in compliance with mandatory conditions of Section 36(2) & (4) of Central Excise Act - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2021-TIOL-63-CESTAT-DEL

Perfect Cargo and Logistics Vs CC

Cus - Revocation of license - The License was issued to assessee about 20 years back - The assessee, as a holder of License, had done customs clearance for firms - The Department had started investigation in 2017 in respect of various exports of readymade garments and during this investigation it was found that five of such exports pertained to assessee - According to SCN that was issued to assessee, of five exporters, two exporters, namely, M/s Impex Trading and Global Trading were not available at address mentioned in KYC document - The assessee claims that the officers of Department visited the address provided by these two firms after a long period of about 18 months - The SCN alleges violation of Regulations 10 (a), (d), (e), (n) and 13 (12) of Licensing Regulations - The Commissioner, before examining the violation of various provisions of Regulations, examined whether the two firms existed and in this context observed that these two firms were non-existing - Regulation 10(a) requires the Customs Broker to obtain an authorisation, which the assessee did - It is not the case of Department that the signatures on authorisation letter were forged or that the persons authorising the assessee denied having given the authority letters - This apart, the assessee also claims that due diligence was carried out for ascertaining the functioning of clients at the address declared by clients and in this connection the partnership deed as well as service tax registration, PAN card, Import Export Code, voter card, electricity bill, bank details and mobile number of the partners with email id were also examined - The Commissioner, therefore, committed an illegality in holding that Regulation 10(a) of Licensing Regulations had been violated - Regulation 10(d) requires a Customs Broker to advice his client to comply with provisions of Act and the Rules and Regulations - The Commissioner has placed much emphasis on statements made by Virender Kumar Saraswat, who is a G-Card holder - The Commissioner noted that he had made a statement that he had never visited the firms nor he had met any of the partners of the said firms and that it was Shashank Sharma who used to meet the G-Card holder on behalf of the two firms to hand over the papers - Out of the documents listed in Annexure to the Circular, only two documents have to be obtained - The assessee did obtain two documents - Neither the Circular nor the Annexure requires any physical verification of premises - It is not the case of Department that the documents that had been obtained were forged documents - The reply submitted by assessee has not been discussed at all nor any reason has been assigned as to why these documents could not be considered - The Commissioner appeared to have been swayed by the fact that the two firms did not exist at the addresses provided and so the documents cannot be relied upon - It needs to be noted that this verification of the address was undertaken by Department after 18 months - The provisions of Regulation 10(e) of the Licensing Regulations were examined at length by the Delhi High Court in Kunal Travels 2017-TIOL-894-HC-DEL-CUS - It is clear from the aforesaid decision that there is no obligation on CHA to look into the information made available by exporter - The CHA is merely a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through Customs House and he is not an inspector to weigh the genuineness of transaction - The grant of Importer/Exporter Code Number is a proof regarding verification of facts and if the grant of such a code number to an entity at the address mentioned is in doubt, then for such erroneous grant of the Importer/Exporter Code Number, the assessee cannot be faulted - The assessee has also stated that the Service Tax Registration Certificate, Voter Card, PAN Card of partners, the Importer Exporter Code Number and Rent Agreement were submitted - The Commissioner was, therefore, not justified in ignoring the documents provided by assessee - The findings that the assessee had not followed the provisions of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of the Licensing Regulations is, therefore, erroneous - The basic requirement of Regulation 10 (n) is that the Customs Broker should verify the identity of client and functioning of client at the declared address by using, reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information - It has also been mentioned in Circular that any of the two listed documents in Annexure would suffice - The assessee had submitted two documents - It was obligatory on the part of Commissioner to have mentioned the documents and discussed the same but all that has been stated in impugned order is that having gone through the submissions of the Customs Broker, it is found that there is no force in the submissions - The finding recorded by Commissioner that required documents were not submitted is, therefore, factually incorrect - The Commissioner, therefore, committed an error in holding that the assessee failed to ensure due compliance of provisions of Regulations 10(n) of Licensing Regulations - The Regulation 13 (12) provides that the Customs Broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees in transaction of business and he will be held responsible for all acts and omissions of his employees during their employment - If the documents that were submitted to the G-Card holder, prima-facie appeared to be authentic, there was no reason for the G-Card holder to verify the contents of the documents - It also needs to be noted that the statement of Customs Broker was not recorded and only the statement of his G-Card holder was recorded by Investigating Agency - It was necessary to record the statement of Customs Broker as allegations have been made against them - The inevitable conclusion, therefore, that follows is that the Commissioner was not justified in revoking the License of assessee or forfeiting the security deposit or imposing penalty: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT