TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
By creating an account you can:
of 45
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the search and seizure operations conducted by tax authorities complied with the jurisdictional pre-condition of "reasons to believe" under the statutory provision empowering inspection, search and seizure.
2. Whether seizure and prospective use of residential CCTV footage and memory devices violated the right to privacy and, if so, what safeguards should govern access and copying of such footage.
3. Whether access to business premises by relying upon a tenant's keys (rather than direct accession by the person being investigated) rendered the search unlawful.
4. Whether communications by investigating officers (email/WhatsApp) and alleged informal coercion to reverse refunds/payment infringed legal norms and warranted relief at the investigation stage.
5. The scope and limits of judicial intervention at the stage of an ongoing investigation under the statutory scheme governing search and seizure.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of search and seizure: "reasons to believe" under the statutory search/seizure provision
Legal framework: The statutory provision grants inspection, search and seizure powers where a proper officer not below Joint Commissioner has "reasons to believe" specified tax-evasion related circumstances; it permits seizure of documents/things useful or relevant to proceedings and prescribes safeguards including recording reasons, receipts and return of documents not relied upon.
Precedent Treatment: The Court follows and applies coordinate and higher court authority holding that (i) the existence of reasons to believe is a jurisdictional fact, (ii) sufficiency of reasons is not amenable to detailed judicial re-weighing so long as there is material furnishing a rational basis for the belief, and (iii) the power is intrusive and to be exercised with care. Prior decisions cited include rulings that require a rational nexus between information and belief and that uphold searches where suppliers were non-existent or prima facie fraudulent chains existed.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the investigating file and intelligence notes indicating a complex chain of apparently non-genuine suppliers, large suspect refund claims and preliminary verification showing non-operational entities and links to the family under investigation. On that material the statutory "reasons to believe" pre-condition was satisfied at the prima facie stage; the exercise of the power was therefore not shown to be arbitrary or illegal on the present record.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where intelligence and preliminary data analysis disclose a prima facie scheme (non-genuine suppliers, funnelled ITC, suspicious refunds), authorities recording reasons to believe may lawfully undertake search/seizure under the provision; judicial review is limited to examining whether some material existed to form the belief. Obiter - Observations on the investigative purpose of Section provisions (not recovery) and the need for care in use of intrusive powers.
Conclusions: The Court concluded the searches were not vitiated for want of "reasons to believe" and allowed investigation to proceed; no relief was granted on this ground.
Issue 2 - Seizure/use of residential CCTV footage and right to privacy
Legal framework: Seizure of documents/electronic devices is permitted if relevant to proceedings, but statutory safeguards (return of irrelevant material, limited retention) and applicable due-process principles (CrPC/SOPs) constrain access and use; privacy rights apply especially to family/residential footage.
Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on precedents recognizing that search/seizure powers are subject to CrPC principles, that intrusive measures require strict compliance with procedure, and that seizure of documents must be for relevant evidence and not retained or used beyond necessity.
Interpretation and reasoning: The GST Department asserted memory cards/hard disk of CCTV footage were seized but not accessed. The Court held that family/residential footage implicates privacy and cannot be used or disseminated without safeguards. To balance investigatory needs and privacy, the Court prescribed a procedure: access/viewing only in presence of at least one family member and an authorised representative, copying only relevant portions after joint viewing, and return of remaining footage.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Seized residential CCTV footage which implicates family privacy shall not be accessed or used except following specified safeguards (presence of family member/authorised representative, limited copying of only relevant material, return of remainder). Obiter - Emphasis that use/dissemination of family footage generally violates privacy and must be stringently regulated.
Conclusions: The Court directed that the seized CCTV hard disk/memory cards be accessed only in presence of a family member and authorised representative; only relevant portions may be copied and remaining footage returned.
Issue 3 - Lawfulness of entry into business premises via tenant's keys
Legal framework: Statute permits sealing/breaking open of premises where access is denied; a search should ideally be effected with knowledge/participation of the person investigated unless exigent circumstances or recorded reasons justify forcible access under the statute.
Precedent Treatment: The Court applied statutory text and prior authority emphasizing due process in conducting searches and that breaking open locks is permissible only after recording reasons to believe and following procedure.
Interpretation and reasoning: The panchnama of the business premises showed the tenant produced a bunch of keys and admitted possession; the officers introduced themselves and showed the search authorization. The Court was not convinced access via the tenant was unlawful on the facts; however, it observed as a general rule that relying on a tenant's keys without knowledge of the investigated person may not be permissible and that officers should ordinarily ensure the person under investigation provides access or, if denied, follow Section 67(4) to break open locks after recording reasons.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - On the present facts, access via tenant's keys was factually validated by the panchnama and not held unlawful. Obiter - General admonition that access through a tenant may be impermissible absent knowledge of the person under investigation; formal procedure for breaking locks must be adhered to.
Conclusions: No illegality in entry was found on the present record; guidelines stated for future conduct where tenant access is relied upon.
Issue 4 - Communications by officials and allegations of coercion/duress in payments/refund withdrawals
Legal framework: Investigative communications should follow official modes and preserve traceability; informal modes (e.g., WhatsApp) are not ordinarily permissible and can give rise to allegations of impropriety; coercion/duress claims require factual adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on principles of due process and prior observations that investigative actions and communications must not be arbitrary and must be traceable.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted email communications should identify name/designation of the official and that WhatsApp use is generally impermissible except in exceptional circumstances; such communications expose officials to allegations and should be avoided. Regarding alleged payments under coercion, the Court found conflicting versions and held that coercion claims require deeper examination in appropriate adjudicatory fora - they could not be decided at the investigation stage. Any reversal/repayment issues will be subject to Show Cause Notice proceedings, and revival of refunds would depend on outcomes there.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Investigative communications should be by prescribed official modes with traceable identification; WhatsApp communications are ordinarily inappropriate. Obiter - Allegations of coercion cannot be resolved at the investigation stage and require adjudication; cautions against officials engaging in avoidable informal communications.
Conclusions: Directions were issued on official mode of communication and restraint on WhatsApp; coercion allegations left to be examined in adjudicatory proceedings (Show Cause Notice stage).
Issue 5 - Extent of judicial intervention during ongoing investigation
Legal framework: Writ jurisdiction permits interference where illegality or mala fide exercise of power is shown, but courts are cautious about intervening at investigative stages absent clear violation of jurisdictional facts or procedural safeguards.
Precedent Treatment: The Court applied established principles limiting interference where reasons to believe exist and where investigation is bona fide; prior decisions were followed that courts should not substitute their own view of evidentiary sufficiency for the investigating authority at preliminary stages.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to stay or quash the investigation given prima facie material supporting reasons to believe, while issuing directions to protect privacy and ensure procedural propriety. Observations were made to the effect that nothing in the order would bind other proceedings and that other remedies remain open to petitioners.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Courts will refrain from curtailing bona fide investigations where statutory pre-conditions are met on prima facie material but may issue protective directions to safeguard fundamental rights and procedural fairness. Obiter - Emphasis that the court's observations do not determine adjudicatory outcomes and do not bind other proceedings.
Conclusions: The Court refused to grant substantive relief curtailing the investigation, but issued directions balancing investigatory interests with privacy and procedural safeguards; other remedies reserved.
ADDITIONAL DIRECTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES (SUMMARY)
1. CCTV hard disk/memory cards from residence to be accessed only in presence of at least one family member and one authorised representative; only relevant portions to be copied; remainder returned.
2. Officials should ordinarily seek access to business premises from the person under investigation; reliance on tenant's keys acceptable only where factual panchnama supports it; otherwise follow Section 67(4) procedures for forced access after recording reasons.
3. Official communications should be via prescribed official modes with name/designation of sender; WhatsApp communications are generally impermissible except in emergencies and ought to be avoided to prevent allegations.
4. Allegations of payments under coercion and withdrawal of refunds require adjudication in Show Cause Notice or appropriate proceedings; the investigation may continue and other remedies remain open.
Legality of search conducted by the officials of the CGST Department - proper officer had reasons to believe that there was large scale wrong-doing indulged in by the Gumber family - refund applications filed to the tune of Rs.5 crores, all of which were filed through fake ITC, without any actual supply of goods and services - seizing of the CCTV footage from the residence - violation of right to pivacy - HELD THAT:- The present case is one where the Petitioners are in effect seeking the intervention of this Court at the stage of investigation itself. Various allegations were initially raised against the officials of the GST Department.
In terms of Section 67 of the Act, if the authorities suspect wrong-doing such as suppression of transactions, wrongfully claimed input tax credit in excess of entitlement, or has indulged in contravention of the provisions of the Act in order to evade tax, or has failed to declare either the premises where goods are kept or illegally transported goods likely to cause evasion of tax, the officers of the GST Department are permitted to inspect, search as also seize - However, a pre-condition for such inspection, search or seizure would be that a senior officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, ought to have ‘reasons to believe’ that circumstances which necessitates either inspection, search or seizure, exists.
In addition, the ‘reasons to believe’ also need to exist before any confiscation of goods, or documents, or books, or things is made. The ‘reasons to believe’ have to disclose that, such seized items are useful or are relevant for the proceedings under the Act. Even superdari seizure is also permitted.
In terms of Section 67(7) of the Act, if seizure is effected under Section 67(2) of the Act, and no SCN is issued within a period of 6 months of the seizure of goods (extendable by a further 6 months on sufficient cause), the seized goods are liable to be returned to the person concerned. Moreover, proper inventory has to be made of the seized goods - It is pertinent to note that the safeguards and conditions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS, 2023) which apply to search and seizure would also apply. If the proper Officer has ‘reasons to believe’ that there is evasion or, an attempt to evade, reasons shall be recorded for retaining the seized goods or other things including documents, and a receipt of the same shall also be executed.
Recently, in ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [2025 (9) TMI 1460 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court was dealing with inspection, search, and seizure conducted under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Legal Metrology Act) read with Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. In the said case, the premises of the Petitioner was inspected and certain stationery items such as books, notebooks, pencils, etc. were seized by the GST Department. The argument was that under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, ‘reasons to believe’ was a condition precedent for conducting inspection, search, and seizure.
A perusal of the second panchnama shows that the officials of the GST Department were given access into the premises by the tenant residing on first floor i.e, Smt. Kamlesh, who had handed over the keys to the officials of the GST Department. The Court is not convinced that the access to the business premises was unlawfully obtained, as is clear from the second panchnama, wherein the tenant who had a bunch of keys, had provided access to the officials of the GST department. It appears that the Gumber family was aware of the fact that the officials wanted to search the said premises and they were given access by the Tenant.
Insofar as any other remedies which the Petitioner wish to avail of are concerned, the same are left open.
Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether, upon filing a modified return under Section 92CD pursuant to an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) and filing the Annual Compliance Report (ACR) in Form 3CEF, the Assessing Officer (AO)/Assessment Unit had jurisdiction to make additions or vary the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in the absence of any adverse compliance-audit report from the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/DGIT/CBDT.
2. Whether the prior sanction/approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 and for passing the order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the correct "specified authority" under Section 151 (as amended), and whether failure to obtain sanction from the statutory authority vitiates the reopening and consequent reassessment order.
3. Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had jurisdiction to initiate/issue the notice under Section 148 (and related proceedings) after introduction of the e-Assessment (Faceless) Scheme (Notification No.18 of 2022) and Section 151A - i.e., whether proceedings had to be undertaken by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).
4. Whether, after reopening the assessment for specific reasons recorded under Section 148A(b), the AO was entitled to proceed to assess/add income on other independent issues not specified in the reasons (including where the original issues were thereafter dropped or reached finality).
5. Whether, alternatively and without prejudice, the AO erred in computation/interpretation of ALP and APA terms while making transfer-pricing adjustments.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Jurisdiction to examine ALP/modify income where APA and ACR filed but no adverse TPO/CBDT report
Legal framework: Sections 92CC (APA), 92CD (effect of APA), Rule 10-O (ACR filing), Rule 10P (TPO compliance audit) and Rule 10R (cancellation of APA) together regulate APA operation, filing of ACR, compliance audit by TPO, and referral to DGIT/CBDT for cancellation.
Precedent treatment: CBDT Instruction No.3/2016 and the statutory Rules envisage mandatory role of TPO for compliance audit and, where there is non-compliance, onward reference to DGIT/CBDT. The AO may refer ALP issues to TPO under Section 92CA(1); where APA exists, Rule 10P limits AO's role.
Interpretation and reasoning: Where APA exists and ACR is filed within the statutory timeline, the TPO alone is empowered to carry out the compliance audit and to report findings to DGIT (and CBDT if cancellation is warranted). Absent any adverse compliance-audit report from the TPO/DGIT/CBDT, the AO/Assessment Unit had no jurisdiction to reject or reinterpret the APA, to refuse to accept the modified return under Section 92CD, or to make ALP adjustments covered by the APA. The statutory scheme makes the APA binding unless validly cancelled following the Rule 10P/10R process.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - AO could not independently re-determine ALP in respect of transactions covered by a valid APA when no adverse TPO/DGIT/CBDT compliance report exists; such power rests with TPO/DGIT/CBDT under Rules 10P/10R and Section 92CD. Obiter - references to CBDT instructions and administrative practice clarify process but do not alter statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The AO/Assessment Unit exceeded jurisdiction by adding an ALP adjustment (Rs.106,47,00,730) in respect of transactions covered by the APA; the modified return under Section 92CD ought to have been accepted in absence of any adverse compliance report.
Issue 2 - Validity of sanction under Section 151 for reopening (specified authority)
Legal framework: Sections 148A and 148 require prior approval of the "specified authority" as defined in Section 151; Section 151 identifies the competent sanctioning authority depending on whether three years from end of the relevant assessment year have elapsed; proviso (Finance Act, 2023) affects computation but has limited temporal operation.
Precedent treatment: High-court authorities interpreted the timing/sanction requirement strictly where notices/orders dated beyond three years required higher authority sanction; recent statutory amendment (proviso) is not to be given retrospective operation to validate earlier approval taken from an incorrect authority.
Interpretation and reasoning: The notice/order in question were dated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year; therefore the sanctioning authority had to be the Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal DG or equivalent higher authority under Section 151(ii). Approval obtained from a Principal Commissioner (appropriate where =3 years) was therefore invalid. The proviso to Section 151 (inserted later) cannot be retrospectively applied to validate prior defective sanction; taxing statutes require express retrospective language to alter limitation/sanction consequences.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reopening founded on sanction by an incorrect specified authority is jurisdictionally vitiated and renders the reopening/notice invalid. Obiter - discussions on the non-retrospective effect of the Finance Act, 2023 proviso and on policy considerations.
Conclusion: The sanction/approval for issuance of the Section 148 notice and for the Section 148A(d) order was invalidly obtained from an incorrect authority; reopening and reassessment are void for lack of valid sanction.
Issue 3 - Jurisdictional competence of JAO versus FAO under Faceless Scheme/Section 151A
Legal framework: Notification (e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme) and Section 151A envisage faceless reassessment proceedings; administrative scheme displaces territorial JAO proceedings for certain types of re-assessment.
Precedent treatment: High Court decisions held notices issued by JAO instead of FAO under the faceless scheme to be without jurisdiction; where such decisions stand unvacated and no stay exists, they govern similar fact situations.
Interpretation and reasoning: The facts showed the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO (non-faceless) notwithstanding the e-Assessment Scheme; in light of binding High Court precedent and absence of a stay, issuance by JAO was beyond jurisdiction. The Department's contention of pendency before the Supreme Court did not negate the operative High Court ruling in the particular facts.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Post-faceless notifications, reassessment notices issued by JAO in breach of the scheme are invalid. Obiter - observations on appellate remedies and pending litigation do not alter the jurisdictional defect.
Conclusion: The Section 148 notice issued by the JAO (non-faceless) was without jurisdiction in the circumstances; this vitiates the reassessment process.
Issue 4 - Power to assess other issues where original reasons dropped or reached finality
Legal framework: Section 147 (as amended) permits assessment/reassessment in respect of income which escaped assessment and any other income which comes to AO's notice subsequently in the course of proceedings; prior jurisprudence (pre-amendment) constrained AO from assessing other income where the original escapement was held not to have escaped assessment unless fresh notice issued.
Precedent treatment: Pre-amendment authorities (e.g., Jet Airways) held that after initial reason is negated the AO cannot independently assess other income without fresh notice; statutory amendment modifies wording but does not squarely dispose of all questions.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that one of the original reopening reasons had been finally concluded and accepted by the assessee; the AO nonetheless proceeded to add other items (ALP adjustment). Given answers to Issues 1-3 (jurisdictional defects), the Court declined to decide the full ambit of Section 147's amended text on the matter and left detailed resolution to an appropriate case.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - treatment of interplay between amended Section 147 and earlier precedents was not finally decided given earlier holdings on jurisdictional defects.
Conclusion: The Court did not make a definitive ruling on this issue; it remained open for adjudication in a proper factual matrix, but the reassessment was quashed on other jurisdictional grounds.
Issue 5 - Merits: alleged erroneous computation of ALP under APA
Legal framework: ALP computation under APA terms and transfer-pricing methodology; AO's power subject to Section 92CC/92CD and Rules 10-O/10P.
Precedent treatment: Where APA governs, challenges to ALP computation ordinarily lie in post-compliance audit/TPO process or on merits before appellate fora; AO cannot, in first instance, substitute own computation for APA terms absent Rule 10P finding.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to examine merits of ALP computation because it concluded AO lacked jurisdiction to determine ALP where APA and ACR existed and no adverse TPO/DGIT/CBDT report was on record. The question of computational error was therefore left open.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - substantive assessment on computation was not determined due to prior findings on jurisdiction.
Conclusion: Merits of ALP computation were not adjudicated; the reassessment was quashed on jurisdictional grounds rendering further factual-technical examination unnecessary in this petition.
Final Disposition (legal consequence)
The reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B was held to suffer from jurisdictional defects (invalid sanction under Section 151; invalid initiation by JAO in face of faceless scheme; and lack of AO jurisdiction to re-determine ALP covered by APA absent adverse TPO/DGIT/CBDT compliance report). The impugned reassessment order was quashed. The Court left open questions regarding Section 147's amended scope and the substantive ALP computation for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 read with Section 144B - notice issued u/s 148A(b) - Jurisdiction to examine ALP/modify income where APA and ACR filed but no adverse TPO/CBDT report -reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year pending on the date of filing of modified return, filed in terms of sub- section (1) of Section 92CD -income chargeable to tax - escaped assessment - belated remittance of employee contribution of provident fund - disallowance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses - addition u/s 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) - petitioner and the CBDT entered into a unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA).
Jurisdiction to examine ALP/modify income where APA and ACR filed but no adverse TPO/CBDT report - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had filed the ACR within ninety days on entering into APA in terms of Rule 10- O of the Rules. The TPO has not submitted any finding of failure on part of the assessee to comply with the terms of the agreement, which could lead to cancellation of agreement. Respondents have not controverted the contention of the petitioner that any adverse report has been received from the TPO or any appropriate authority. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent No.1 or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to examine and to make reassessment on its own. He is not vested with the jurisdiction to interpret the APA as to whether the petitioner has satisfied the terms and conditions of the APA. It is only the TPO who has the jurisdiction over the assessee to carry out the compliance audit of the agreement for each of the year covered in the agreement. In case the compliance audit report submitted within the prescribed period of six months from the end of the month in which the ACR referred to Rule 10-O of the Rules, is furnished by the TPO with the finding of failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the terms of the agreement, the DGIT (International Transaction) is obligated to forward to the Board for cancellation of the agreement, if required in terms of Rule 10R of the Rules.
The conception of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner/assessee also was required to add other income in its modified return, is also incorrect since under Section 92CD(1), notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, the person entering into APA is required to furnish a modified return in accordance with and limited to the agreement i.e., ALP covered under the international transaction within a period of three months from the end of the month in which the said agreement was entering into. Even in a case where the APA has not been entered into, the Assessing Officer if he considers it for determining the ALP in an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, as per Section 92CA(1), the Assessing Officer if he considers it necessary or expedient to do so, may, refer the computation of ALP in relation to such international transaction or specified domestic transaction to the TPO. The CBDT has issued instruction No.3 of 2016, dated 10.03.2016 to reconcile the provisions of Section 92C(3) and 92CA(1) for proper administration of the Act which inter alia contain detailed guidelines for implementation of the transfer pricing provisions. It requires the Assessing Officer to mandatorily refer to the TPO the issue of determination of ALP of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 committed jurisdictional error in not accepting the modified return under Section 92CD of the Act. The respondent No.1 could not have made any addition to the income of the petitioner based on the terms of the APA. In the absence of any adverse report from the TPO/CBDT, the respondent No.1 was obligated to accept that the petitioner had complied with the terms of the APA and no addition can be made to the modified return of income.
Sanction/approval obtained for reopening of the assessment was not in accordance with section 151 of the Act and as a result the Assessment Order dated 16th January 2024 was void, bad-in-law and of no legal effect - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 have been issued on 07.04.2022 relatable to the relevant Assessment Year 2018-19 i.e., after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and before issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by the respondent No.1, which is permissible only if three years or less than three years have lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the relevant three years lapsed on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Director General was required to be obtained before passing of the order under Section 148A(d) or before issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Assessing Officer could not have assumed exclusion of such a period while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act or issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 that such a proviso excluding the period consumed in furnishing the reply is going to be brought into the statute book by amendment by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 01.04.2023. In taxing statutes, intendment cannot be assumed unless specifically expressed in the provision enacted by the legislature. Therefore, the reopening of assessment without sanction/approval of the specified authority in accordance with Section 151 of the Act was bad in law. Consequently, reassessment order dated 16.01.2024 also is bad in law.
Therefore, it is held that the reopening of the assessment and the consequent reassessment order suffer from jurisdictional error.
Lack of jurisdiction for issue of Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and Notice under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- The revenue went in Appeal against the judgment [2024 (8) TMI 1598 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT]. The apex Court [2025 (7) TMI 1441 - SC ORDER] its decision has dismissed the Special Leave Petition holding that after going through the material on record, it does not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the this Court. Though learned counsel for the respondent has taken a plea that the matter is still sub judice before the apex Court, it is also not disputed that there is no stay on the decision rendered on the subject by this Court. Therefore, it is held that the notice dated 07.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act by the JAO is without jurisdiction.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Assessing Officer was correct in treating the entire capital gain from sale of immovable property as taxable in the assessment year instead of only the portion not utilized from the Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS) within the prescribed three-year period under Section 54/54F and the proviso to Section 54/54F/Section 45 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was justified where the unutilised amount in the CGAS was detected during reassessment proceedings and the assessee had deposited amounts in CGAS and later offered the unutilised portion to tax.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Extent of taxable capital gain when amounts are deposited in Capital Gains Account Scheme but not fully utilized within three years
Legal framework: The proviso to Section 54/54F and the deeming provisions under Section 45 provide that amounts deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme for reinvestment in specified residential property are eligible for exemption but any amount not utilized for the permitted purpose within the specified three-year period is to be charged as capital gains in the year in which the three-year period expires.
Precedent treatment: Lower authorities treated the entire capital gain as taxable. The Assessing Officer relied on authorities to support imposition of penalty (see Issue 2 analysis) but the core statutory treatment of CGAS shortfall rests on the text of Sections 54/54F and the proviso to Section 45 rather than on the penalty jurisprudence.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's admission that only part of the deposited CGAS amount was actually utilized for acquiring the residential flat and that a quantifiable unutilised portion remained in the CGAS beyond the three-year period. The Tribunal reasoned that the statutory scheme envisages charging to tax only the amount not utilised after expiry of the three-year period, not the entire capital gain which had originally arisen and was deposited. The AO's treatment of taxing the full capital gain therefore did not align with the statutory proviso which operates to deem only the unutilised portion as income in the later year.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an assessee deposits capital gains into CGAS and subsequently utilizes only a portion for the permitted acquisition/construction within the statutory period, only the unutilised portion which remains after expiry of the three-year period is chargeable to tax in the year of expiry; taxing the entire original capital gain in that subsequent year is incorrect. Obiter - Observations about the assessee's factual plan to buy two adjacent flats, dispute with builder and the precise amounts spent are factual findings supporting application of the statutory scheme.
Conclusions: The Assessing Officer erred in adding the entire capital gains to the assessee's total income; only the unutilised amount remaining in CGAS after the expiry of three years is to be taxed as long-term capital gains in the relevant assessment year. The appeal on this issue is allowed to the extent of restricting taxable addition to the unutilised portion.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Validity of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment where CGAS shortfall was detected during reassessment
Legal framework: Section 271(1)(c) permits levy of penalty where the assessee is found to have concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The fact that an undisclosed or unutilised arrangement is discovered during reassessment may be relevant to the question of concealment; the onus is on the revenue to establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): The Assessing Officer relied upon judgments to support penalty imposition (identified in the record). The Tribunal did not treat those authorities as determinative of the point that the entire capital gain may be taxed; rather, the Tribunal confined itself to the statutory scheme for computing taxable income. The record shows the AO relied on precedents to justify the view that detection during reassessment supports a finding of concealment; the Tribunal did not expressly overrule those precedents but analyzed the correctness of the assessment computation which bears on whether concealment was established.
Interpretation and reasoning: The penalty order's reasoning asserted that detection of the unutilised CGAS amount only upon reassessment amounted to concealment. Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee, being an experienced taxpayer, should have availed professional advice. The assessee had deposited amounts in CGAS within due dates, had an explanation for non-utilisation (dispute with builder), and admitted and offered the unutilised amount for taxation. The Tribunal confined its decision to the correctness of the tax addition and accepted the assessee's admission that only the unutilised portion remained taxable. The Tribunal did not record a detailed finding overturning or sustaining the imposition of penalty in the text of the order beyond partly allowing the appeal on the tax computation point.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - Statements in the AO's penalty order attributing concealment to the fact that the arrangement was detected on reassessment and asserting that the assessee, being a regular taxpayer, must have taken professional advice are factual and inferential observations rather than binding legal ratio. The Tribunal's correction of the tax computation is ratio on the issue of charging income from CGAS shortfall; the record does not contain an explicit ratio affirming or negating the penalty in final terms.
Conclusions: The Tribunal accepted the factual admission that only the unutilised CGAS amount remained taxable and corrected the AO's addition accordingly. While the AO had concluded concealment and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal's order as recorded primarily addresses the tax computation error (allowing the appeal partly). The Tribunal's reasoning undermines the AO's basis for treating the entire gain as concealed income; however, the order does not set out a clear, separate adjudication overturning or sustaining the penalty beyond the appellate relief granted on the assessment computation.
INTER-RELATION AND FINAL DETERMINATION
The Court/Tribunal reconciled the statutory provisions governing exemption and deeming of unutilised CGAS amounts with the admitted facts and concluded that the AO's approach of taxing the entire original capital gain in the subsequent year was incorrect; only the unutilised portion after the three-year period is taxable. The appellate order is partly allowed on that ground. The AO's finding of concealment, relied upon to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c), was premised on detection during reassessment; the Tribunal's corrective finding on the correct taxable quantum materially affects the factual foundation for a finding of concealment, though the order does not explicitly articulate a complete disposition solely on the penalty head within the text reproduced.
Exemption u/s 54 - investment in residential house property - HELD THAT:- Assessee has already admitted this fact that the capital gains arose from the said transaction has not fully utilized and has offered unutilized amount for taxation.
As submitted by the ld. AR that the AO was not correct to add the entire capital gains to the total income of the assessee and should have added only unutilized amount for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 54F.
We find that the AO was not correct in adding the entire capital gains, only unutilized amount should be added in the total income of the assessee and not the entire amount.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue under section 263 where amounts shown as disallowable in the tax audit/Form 3CD (unpaid VAT and delayed employees' contributions to PF/ESI) were not enquired into or added by the AO.
2. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (revisionary authority) is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under section 263 by application of the doctrine of merger where the assessee had appealed against adjustments made in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) and the appellate order related to the intimation but no appeal was filed against the separate assessment order under section 143(3).
3. Whether directing remand/verification to the Assessing Officer under section 263 is permissible where the revisional authority records a finding that the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, as opposed to merely directing verification without first finding an error.
4. Whether an apparent arithmetical or factual inconsistency between income accepted in the assessment order and income computed in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) can constitute an apparent error justifying exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Failure to enquire into/Form 3CD reported disallowances (Section 43B and Section 2(24)(x))
Legal framework: Section 263 authorises revision where an order of the AO is "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." The Explanation to section 263 provides that an order passed without making enquiries or verifications which should have been made by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial. Section 43B(a) disallows certain liabilities (e.g., unpaid tax, duty, cess) unless paid by the due date; Section 2(24)(x) treats certain delayed employer contributions as income.
Precedent treatment: The appellate Tribunal referenced binding and coordinate pronouncements recognizing that omission to make required enquiries/verification and ignoring tax-audit/Form 3CD disclosures can render an order erroneous and prejudicial, warranting revision under section 263.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the tax audit/Form 3CD which explicitly reported (i) unpaid VAT amount as disallowable under section 43B(a) and (ii) delay in deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI. The AO, while completing assessment under section 143(3), neither inquired into these entries nor made corresponding additions. Given the statutory treatment of such items and the auditor's explicit reporting, the revisional authority reasonably concluded that necessary enquiries were omitted. The Explanation to section 263 deems such omission to constitute an error prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal found the AO's silence on those entries and absence of any enquiry to amount to failure contemplated by the Explanation, thereby establishing error and prejudice.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - omission by AO to make enquiries/verification regarding entries in tax audit/Form 3CD that prima facie attract disallowance under the Act makes the order erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of section 263; such omission justifies revisional action.
Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was rightly invoked with respect to the unpaid VAT and delayed employee contributions as the AO failed to make requisite enquiries and thereby rendered his order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
Issue 2 - Doctrine of merger and preclusion of revisional jurisdiction where appellate order related to intimation under section 143(1) only
Legal framework: Doctrine of merger operates where an appellate order supersedes and merges earlier adjudicatory orders in respect of the same proceedings and issues appealed. Distinct statutory proceedings (e.g., intimation under section 143(1)(a) and assessment under section 143(3)) remain separate unless an appeal has been filed against the specific order to be merged.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the established principle that an appellate order merges with the order against which appeal was filed; it does not automatically merge with separate orders in distinct proceedings where no appeal was filed.
Interpretation and reasoning: The adjustments complained of were made in the intimation under section 143(1)(a). The assessee appealed against that intimation and obtained an appellate order in respect of the intimation. However, the assessment under section 143(3) was a separate proceeding in which no appeal was filed. Because the appellate order related only to the intimation and not to the separate assessment order, there was no legal basis to treat the assessment order as merged with the appellate order. Consequently, the revisional authority retained jurisdiction to examine the assessment order under section 263. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the existence of an appellate order on the intimation precluded revision of the separate 143(3) assessment.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an appellate order merges only with the order appealed against; it does not merge with a distinct assessment order under section 143(3) where no appeal against that assessment was prosecuted, and therefore does not bar exercise of section 263 on the separate assessment.
Conclusion: Doctrine of merger did not preclude exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the section 143(3) assessment because the appellate order pertained only to the section 143(1)(a) intimation and not to the section 143(3) assessment order.
Issue 3 - Permissibility of remanding/verification under section 263 after recording error and prejudice
Legal framework: Section 263 allows revision when the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial. There is judicial guidance that mere direction for verification without recording an error is impermissible; however, where the revisional authority records that the AO's proceedings exhibit abject failure or lapse (i.e., establishes both error and prejudice), a remit for further enquiry may be appropriate.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal distinguished prior decisions holding that section 263 cannot be used simply to direct verification in the absence of a recorded finding of error. It also relied on higher court authority permitting remand when the revisional authority records abject failure/lapse by the AO to establish error and prejudice.
Interpretation and reasoning: The revisional authority in the instant matter recorded a categorical finding that the AO failed to make enquiries and hence the order was erroneous and prejudicial. That recorded finding preceded and justified a direction to remand to the AO for verification of the assessee's factual assertions (e.g., whether VAT was not debited to P&L account). The Tribunal contrasted this situation with cases where remand was ordered without any recorded finding of error; here, the presence of the finding converted the remand into a permissible corrective exercise rather than an impermissible fishing expedition.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - remanding the matter for verification under section 263 is permissible where the revisional authority first records a finding of error and prejudice (including abject failure/lapse by the AO); remand without such a finding is impermissible.
Conclusion: The revisional authority's direction for verification/remand was valid because it followed a recorded finding that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue arising from failure to enquire into entries in the tax audit/Form 3CD.
Issue 4 - Apparent error from mismatch between income in 143(1)(a) intimation and income accepted in 143(3) assessment
Legal framework: Section 263 encompasses apparent errors in an AO's order which are prejudicial to revenue. An inconsistency between figures accepted in different statutory orders or documents can constitute an apparent error inviting revision if it demonstrates lapse or failure by the AO to reflect statutory adjustments.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treated such arithmetical/factual inconsistencies as indicia of omission or failure by the AO consistent with the Explanation to section 263, supporting revisional action.
Interpretation and reasoning: The intimation under section 143(1)(a) showed income computed at a figure higher than the income accepted in the subsequent assessment order. The AO's acceptance of a lower figure without addressing or reconciling the intimation's computed income and without enquiries into Form 3CD entries indicated an apparent omission. The Tribunal regarded this inconsistency as corroborative of the AO's failure to make required enquiries and thus as an apparent error prejudicial to the revenue.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an unaddressed inconsistency between the income computed in the 143(1)(a) intimation and the income accepted in a 143(3) assessment, when coupled with omitted enquiries into tax-audit/Form 3CD items, can constitute an apparent error warranting revision under section 263.
Conclusion: The mismatch in reported/computed incomes substantiated the revisional finding of error and supported exercise of section 263 jurisdiction.
Overall Conclusion
The revisional authority validly exercised jurisdiction under section 263: (i) the AO omitted to make enquiries/verifications on tax-audit/Form 3CD disclosures that prima facie attracted disallowance under section 43B and inclusion under section 2(24)(x), rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; (ii) the doctrine of merger did not bar revision because the appellate order related only to the 143(1)(a) intimation and not to the separate 143(3) assessment; (iii) remand for verification was permissible after the revisional authority recorded a finding of error and prejudice; and (iv) the inconsistency between figures in the 143(1)(a) intimation and the 143(3) assessment reinforced the conclusion of apparent error.
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO did not make addition in respect of amounts as reported in Form 3CD as VAT not paid during the year, which was disallowable u/s 43B and Employee’s contribution of Provident Fund not paid within the due date which was to be considered as income u/s 2(24)(x) of the Act.
HELD THAT:- In the present case, PCIT had given a categorical finding that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Considering the fact that the Auditor had reported that the unpaid VAT was liable for disallowance u/s 43B(a), which was not made in the assessment order, the order of the AO was erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
PCIT had set aside this matter only to verify the claim of the assessee that the VAT was not debited to Profit & Loss Account and, therefore, no disallowance u/s 43B was called for.
On the other issue of belated payment employee’s contribution of P.F. and ESI, there was no dispute at all and the order was certainly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, the direction for verification in the present case was after recording the finding by the Ld. PCIT that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. V-Con Integrated Solutions (P.) Ltd [2025 (4) TMI 1137 - SC ORDER (LB)] has held that remanding the matter to the AO is justified in the cases where the PCIT records abject failure and lapse on the part of the AO to establish both the error and the prejudice caused to the revenue.
In the present case, no investigation was carried out by the AO at all, in respect of issues for which the PCIT has found the order of the AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, PCIT had correctly exercised his jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 263 of the Act. In the result, the order of the PCIT is upheld. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the notice under section 148/assessments opened under section 147 of the Act are valid when issued consequential to the decision in Ashish Agarwal (as relied upon by the Assessing Officer) for the assessment year 2015-16.
2. Whether the appellate order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) suffered from denial of effective opportunity of hearing and failure to adjudicate specific legal grounds (non-compliance with section 148A; absence of notice under section 143(2)), thereby violating principles of natural justice.
3. Whether additions/disallowances made in the assessment (alleged non-genuine reversal trades, disallowance under section 68 for unexplained cash credits, additions under section 69C for unexplained expenditure/commission) were sustainable on merits.
4. Whether the Assessing Officer's reliance on third-party statements without affording opportunity of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice and affected the validity of the assessment.
5. Whether interest miscomputation under section 234A required adjustment by the appellate authority.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of reopening under section 147/notice under section 148 issued consequential to Ashish Agarwal decision
Legal framework: Reopening of assessment under section 147 requires valid issuance of notice under section 148; such notices must satisfy statutory and constitutional constraints as expounded by higher courts. Decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the law on reopening are binding on tribunals.
Precedent Treatment: The Court followed subsequent higher-court developments which addressed the correctness/applicability of Ashish Agarwal for the assessment year in question. A later Supreme Court decision (Rajeev Bansal) and related orders contained a concession by the Department limiting the applicability for AY 2015-16, and subsequent dismissal of SLPs followed that concession.
Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned notice expressly stated that proceedings were initiated in consequence of the Ashish Agarwal judgment. The Court observed that subsequent Supreme Court rulings, together with the departmental concession, settled the issue against reopening for the relevant assessment year. Respectfully following that later authoritative position, the Court concluded the foundational premise for reopening (as articulated in the notice) no longer supported sustaining the reassessment.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a reopening/notice under section 148 is predicated solely on a Supreme Court decision whose applicability has been subsequently curtailed by later authoritative pronouncement or concession as to the specific assessment year, the notice can be set aside. This is a binding application of later precedent to the facts. Obiter - no extraneous observations beyond applying the later decision were made.
Conclusions: The notice under section 148 and the resultant assessment were set aside/quashed in view of the later controlling pronouncement and concession; reopening was held invalid for the assessment year 2015-16.
Issue 2 - Alleged denial of effective hearing and failure by CIT(A) to adjudicate specific legal grounds (section 148A non-compliance; absence of notice under section 143(2))
Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that appellate authorities afford effective opportunity of being heard and decide distinct legal grounds raised by an assessee; determinations on jurisdictional objections (e.g., validity of reopening under section 147, compliance with section 148A) are adjudicable issues.
Precedent Treatment: The Court reviewed the grievance but, on grounds of outcome, applied the later Supreme Court position to set aside the notice. The decision therefore did not longitudinally examine or rule on the procedural fairness aspects in a way that would depart from or overrule precedent on natural justice.
Interpretation and reasoning: Although the assessee alleged ex-parte disposal and failure to adjudicate specific grounds, the Court's primary determination-that the underlying notice and reassessment were invalid-rendered adjudication of the procedural complaints unnecessary for the final outcome. The Court noted the appellant's contentions but resolved the appeal on the jurisdictional/precedential basis described in Issue 1.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - the comments on denial of opportunity and failure to decide specific grounds are not treated as ratio because the appeal was allowed on the ground of invalidity of the notice. The Court did not make binding pronouncements either accepting or rejecting the procedural complaints on their merits.
Conclusions: Procedural complaints were noted but not decided on merit; relief was granted by setting aside the notice under section 148, making further adjudication of these complaints unnecessary to the result.
Issue 3 - Additions/disallowances on merits (non-genuine reversal trades; section 68 additions; section 69C additions for unexplained commission/expenditure)
Legal framework: Additions under section 68 (unexplained cash credits) and section 69C (unexplained expenditure) and disallowance of losses/profits based on allegations of non-genuine trades require that the Assessing Officer establish the facts and allow the assessee opportunity to rebut; findings are subject to judicial review for jurisdictional validity and sufficiency of evidence.
Precedent Treatment: The Court did not undertake a detailed merits review of these additions because it quashed the assessment on jurisdictional grounds per Issue 1. Therefore, no precedent was overruled or distinguished on the substantive points concerning the nature of trades or explanation of credits/expenditure.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee challenged multiple additions as contrary to facts (e.g., profits arising through banking channels via registered brokers, disclosed trading activity) and contended that the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed those additions. The Court observed these contentions but, by setting aside the foundational notice, concluded that the impugned additions could not stand as they were consequences of an invalid reassessment process.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - substantive observations on the correctness of the additions were not rendered as ratio. The Court's decision does not decide whether the evidence sufficed to sustain section 68/69C additions or the allegation of reversal trades; it nullified the assessment on jurisdictional/precedential grounds.
Conclusions: Because the notice under section 148 and the resultant assessment were quashed, the additions/disallowances confirmed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were set aside; the Court did not adjudicate their substantive correctness.
Issue 4 - Reliance on third-party statements without cross-examination and principles of natural justice
Legal framework: Reliance upon third-party statements in an assessment requires that the assessee be afforded an opportunity to test such evidence, including cross-examination, where necessary, to satisfy principles of natural justice; failure to do so can vitiate the assessment.
Precedent Treatment: The Court acknowledged the complaint that no opportunity for cross-examination was provided in respect of third-party statements relied upon by the AO. However, in view of the disposition on the validity of the reopening, the Court did not deliver a standalone ruling on the natural-justice defect alleged in connection with third-party evidence.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized the procedural objection but treated it as subsumed by the primary finding that the reopening itself was invalid. Thus, any potential infirmity arising from reliance on third-party statements without cross-examination did not require independent adjudication for disposing of the appeal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - the question was noted but left undetermined substantively; no ratio is laid down on the requisite scope of cross-examination when third-party statements are used in reassessments.
Conclusions: The alleged violation of natural justice regarding third-party statements was not decided on merit; the quashing of the notice under section 148 rendered further consideration unnecessary.
Issue 5 - Incorrect computation of interest under section 234A
Legal framework: Computation of interest under section 234A follows prescribed statutory scheme and is subject to correction where assessments/adjustments affecting tax liability are set aside or altered.
Precedent Treatment: The Court did not enter into a detailed computation or correction of interest because the assessment itself was quashed. No precedent was considered or altered regarding interest computation.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee sought relief for incorrect computation of interest. Given the Court's primary finding that the reassessment was invalid, any determination of interest arising from that assessment became academic. The Court therefore did not adjudicate the interest computation issue on its merits.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - no ratio on interest computation is laid down; the point was not necessary to the decision.
Conclusions: Interest computation issue was not adjudicated; the quashing of the assessment negated the need to decide this ground.
Overall Disposition
The Court, following subsequent Supreme Court developments and departmental concession limiting the applicability of the earlier precedent for the assessment year in question, set aside the notice under section 148 and quashed the resultant reassessment order; consequential procedural and substantive complaints were noted but left undetermined as unnecessary to the final result. The appeal was allowed.
Reopening of assessment under old regime - scope of new regime - scope of TOLA - as argued notice has been issued on the basis of the provisions which have ceased to exist and are no longer in the statute - Whether TOLA is applicable for AY 2015-2016 and whether any notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after 31st March 2021 will travel back to the original date? -HELD THAT:- The quarrel pursuant to such notice following the decision of Ashish Agarwal [2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT] has been settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] in which the ld. Additional Solicitor General of India, has made concession insofar as, the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned. The same view was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, in the case of ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah [2025 (4) TMI 1095 - SC ORDER] the notices and orders impugned in these petitions are quashed and set aside.
The impugned notice is set aside and the resultant order is quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal ought to be condoned given that the appeal was initially filed before an incorrect authority though the appeal fee was paid within time.
2. Whether the Principal Commissioner's revision under section 263 (including Explanation 2(a)) was justified in setting aside the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to verify alleged non-deduction of TDS on foreign remittances of Rs. 4,05,69,846/- - i.e., whether there was "no enquiry" or merely an "inadequate enquiry."
3. Whether an assessment order in which the Assessing Officer raised queries under section 142(1), considered the assessee's replies (including Form 15CA acknowledgements and reasons for non-deduction), and recorded acceptance of explanations can be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under section 263 merely because the revisional authority disagrees with the view taken.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal
Legal framework: Principles governing condonation of delay require "sufficient cause" to be shown; courts examine bona fides, length of delay, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the opposite party.
Precedent Treatment: Reliance placed on the Supreme Court principle that limitation rules are not meant to destroy rights but to prevent dilatory tactics; relevant precedent establishes liberal approach where bona fide mistake is shown and appeal fee paid within time.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee filed the appeal within the statutory period but before the wrong authority due to a clerical/jurisdictional misconception; the appeal fee was paid within time; delay was short (45 days); bona fides were not disputed substantively. The Court distinguished decisions rejecting condonation in cases of long delays and inattention by professionals where facts differ materially.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - short delay combined with payment of fee within time and bona fide filing before wrong authority constitutes sufficient cause for condonation. Obiter - reference to fact-distinguishing other authority rejecting condonation for long unexplained delays.
Conclusion: Delay of 45 days condoned; appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
Issue 2 - Scope of Section 263 and Explanation 2(a): "No Enquiry" v. "Inadequate Enquiry"
Legal framework: Section 263 empowers revision where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; Explanation 2(a) treats an order as erroneous if passed "without making inquiries or verification which should have been made." The revisional power cannot be exercised merely because the revisional authority would have made a deeper inquiry or preferred a different view.
Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on a line of decisions holding that where the Assessing Officer has made enquiries, called for information, considered replies and applied mind, the revision jurisdiction cannot be exercised to substitute the revisional authority's opinion for that of the AO. Decisions cited include authoritative judgments holding that mere inadequacy of enquiry or difference of opinion does not justify revision under section 263.
Interpretation and reasoning: The records show that (i) the AO issued notice under section 142(1); (ii) the assessee furnished details of foreign remittances, reasons for non-deduction of TDS, and Form 15CA acknowledgement numbers; and (iii) the assessment order specifically records the AO's consideration and acceptance of the explanation regarding foreign remittances. Thus, there was actual enquiry and application of mind by the AO. The revisional order did not point to any specific lacuna or overlooked material that would demonstrate a complete lack of enquiry. The revisional authority relied on a generalized view that the AO should have made further verification, but failed to demonstrate that enquiries required by law were omitted. The Court distinguished cases where no verification or enquiry was made at all (where revision was justified). The Court held that Explanation 2(a) is not a license to reappraise evidence or substitute the PCIT's view where AO has already made reasonable enquiries and reached a plausible conclusion.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where AO has raised requisite queries, received and recorded detailed replies, and applied his mind to accept those replies, Explanation 2(a) cannot be invoked to treat the order as erroneous merely because the revisional authority considers the enquiry inadequate; such power cannot be exercised for mere change of opinion. Obiter - discussion distinguishing fact patterns of judgments relied upon by the revisional authority.
Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under section 263 (including Explanation 2(a)) was not properly invoked; the assessment order was not shown to be "passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made." The revision was quashed.
Issue 3 - Sufficiency of AO's Recorded Consideration and the Consequence of Disagreement by Revisional Authority
Legal framework: An assessment cannot be revised under section 263 if the AO has made enquiries, considered and recorded reasons for acceptance; only where the order is demonstrably erroneous and prejudicial because of lack of enquiry, failure to inquire into a claim, non-compliance with binding directions, or similar statutory defects can revision be sustained.
Precedent Treatment: Binding and persuasive precedents establish that revision cannot be used to direct further inquiry merely because the revisional authority disagrees with the view. Where AO has applied his mind and reached a plausible conclusion, that conclusion is not vitiated solely by a different view being possible.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessment order expressly discusses the foreign remittance figures, the relative proportion to turnover over preceding years, and records the AO's acceptance of the assessee's explanation. The assessee had supplied documentary support including Form 15CA acknowledgements and reasons for nondeduction. The PCIT's order criticized the depth of enquiry but did not identify specific omitted verifications or overlooked documents that would render the assessment per se erroneous. Given the AO's recorded consideration and acceptance, the Court found no legal basis to set aside the assessment on grounds of mere inadequacy of enquiry or difference of opinion.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - recorded consideration and acceptance by the AO of replies to specific queries precludes setting aside the assessment under section 263 on the ground that the enquiry was inadequate; lack of specific demonstration of omitted enquiries is fatal to revision. Obiter - commentary on factual distinctions with authorities where no verification occurred.
Conclusion: The revisional order founded on disagreement with the AO's view - without pointing to specific missing enquiries or demonstrable error - is unjustified; the revisional order is quashed and the appeal is allowed.
Revision u/s 263 - no enquiry V/S inadequate enquiry - non-verification of foreign remittances on which TDS was allegedly not deducted by the assessee - whether on facts and law view taken by the AO which was one of the possible views and therefore, assessment order passed by the AO cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee had made full compliance, and the Ld. AO, upon due consideration and application of mind, accepted the explanation as proper. The impugned issue is specifically noted in the assessment order itself, reflecting that the AO had consciously applied his mind. In this regard, we draw support from the judgment of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as decision of Poonam Marwah [2025 (2) TMI 437 - ITAT AMRITSAR] The law is well-settled that where an AO has made due enquiry and taken a view, the same cannot be held to be erroneous merely because the Ld. PCIT holds a different opinion.
Whether the Ld. PCIT, by invoking Explanation 2(a) to section 263, was justified in revising the assessment order and treating it as “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”? - On facts, we find that the Ld. AO had indeed examined the issue by raising queries under section 142(1) and considering the replies filed by the assessee. Hence, it is not a case of “no enquiry.”
As in Narayan Tatu Rane [2016 (5) TMI 1162 - ITAT MUMBAI] has categorically held that the power under section 263 cannot be exercised for a mere change of opinion. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. DR of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court are factually distinguishable, as in those cases no verification had been carried out by the AO, unlike the present case.
We also place reliance on the binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which clearly lays down that once necessary queries are raised and replies are furnished, the assessment order cannot be revised u/s 263 merely because the PCIT holds a different view.
Invocation of section 263 in the present case, without pointing out any specific lacuna in the assessment order, is unjustified. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether agricultural income legitimately earned from nursery operations can be treated as unexplained money and added to income under section 69A when the assessee fails to produce books, bills and vouchers for expenditure.
2. Whether an assessing authority may estimate agricultural income per acre in absence of supporting documentary evidence, and on what basis such estimation can be revised on appeal.
3. Whether an income certificate issued by the Revenue Department and other documentary material can rebut the assessing officer's estimate and the consequent addition under section 69A.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Treatment of agricultural income as unexplained money under section 69A where taxpayer has not produced books/bills.
Legal framework: Section 69A permits addition to income where amount is found from books or documents and the assessee cannot satisfactorily explain it. Agricultural income is otherwise exempt but may be assessable to additions if claimed receipts/exempt income are not satisfactorily explained.
Precedent Treatment: The Court considered the statutory standard that unexplained money under section 69A requires inability to satisfactorily explain the source or nature of amounts shown in books/documents. No contrary precedent was overruled; the Tribunal applied established principle that absence of vouchers permits estimation, but the burden to justify claimed exempt income remains on the assessee.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that absence of books/bills weakens the assessee's position, but emphasized that the legal test under section 69A is whether the assessing authority could be satisfied, on available material, that the amounts were unexplained. The Tribunal examined the assessee's submissions, sales figures, computation of income and an agricultural income certificate produced before the AO. It concluded that non-production of expenditure vouchers did not automatically render all claimed agricultural receipts as unexplained money when other documentary evidence (income certificate, bank statements, licences, land records) supported the claim.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 69A addition cannot be mechanically applied where supporting non-book documentary evidence rebuts the assessing officer's disbelief; absence of vouchers is a factor, not an absolute bar. Obiter - Observations on comparative per-acre yields of nurseries versus traditional crops are explanatory and contextual.
Conclusion: The AO's blanket addition under section 69A was not sustainable to the full extent; a portion of the claimed agricultural income could be accepted where corroborative documentary evidence existed, reducing the unexplained amount.
Issue 2: Validity and basis of estimating agricultural income per acre in absence of documentary evidence and appellate revision.
Legal framework: Assessing authorities may estimate income where records are inadequate, but estimates must be based on relevant material or sound basis. Appellate authorities may revise estimates if assessing officer's basis is arbitrary or contradicted by available evidence.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the established principle that an AO's estimate must have basis on record and cannot be arbitrary; appellate authority must substitute a reasonable estimate when record supports it. No precedent was expressly followed, distinguished or overruled beyond this application.
Interpretation and reasoning: The AO estimated agricultural income at Rs. 60,000 per acre without a recorded basis; the Tribunal found this figure to be without foundation on the record. Conversely, the assessee had placed on record an agricultural income certificate indicating Rs. 1,00,000 per acre, bank statements showing year-round sales, nursery licences and land records. The Tribunal held that where the AO's estimate lacks basis and the assessee furnishes a plausible alternative supported by official certificate and other documents, the appellate authority can and should direct a revised estimate grounded on those materials. The Tribunal thus directed estimation at Rs. 1,00,000 per acre for 20 acres, resulting in agricultural income of Rs. 20,00,000.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An AO's per-acre estimate must be grounded on record; appellate authorities may correct arbitrary estimates by adopting a reasonable figure supported by documentary evidence such as an income certificate. Obiter - Comparative comments regarding typical yields for paddy/wheat versus nursery operations are illustrative, not binding.
Conclusion: The AO's estimate at Rs. 60,000 per acre was arbitrary and replaced with Rs. 1,00,000 per acre based on the agricultural income certificate and other documents, leading to a reduced addition.
Issue 3: Evidentiary value of an agricultural income certificate and other non-voucher documents to rebut additions under section 69A.
Legal framework: Documentary evidence other than detailed bills/vouchers - such as official income certificates, bank statements, licences and land records - can be relevant to satisfy the assessing authority about the genuineness of claimed receipts, though the weight accorded depends on the total record.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal treated the agricultural income certificate and ancillary documents as admissible and relevant corroboration. The approach follows the principle that sufficiency is context-driven; no precedent was overruled.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee produced an income certificate issued by the Revenue Department, bank statements evidencing year-round receipts, nursery licences and Pattadar passbook and lease details. The AO had noted receipt of the income certificate but recorded no adverse finding about its genuineness. Given absence of contrary findings and AO's lack of basis for a lower estimate, the Tribunal found the certificate and documents sufficient to justify revising the estimate. The Tribunal also recognized that nursery operations differ from seasonal crops and may yield higher, year-round receipts - a factual consideration supported by bank records and licences.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Official income certificates and corroborative non-voucher documentary material can rebut an AO's scepticism and justify revision of an arbitrary estimate under section 69A. Obiter - The general characterization of nursery activities as intensive and not wholly weather-dependent is fact-specific and illustrative.
Conclusion: The agricultural income certificate and other documents had sufficient probative value to justify acceptance of a higher per-acre estimate and to restrict the addition under section 69A to the balance amount of Rs. 2,26,289.
Cross-references and overall conclusion
The issues are interrelated: the legal standard under section 69A (Issue 1) governs the permissibility of additions; the validity of the AO's estimate (Issue 2) depends on whether it is based on record; and the evidentiary weight of the agricultural income certificate and other documents (Issue 3) determines whether the AO's estimate can be successfully challenged. Applying these principles, The Court reduced the AO's addition by substituting a reasoned estimate supported by the assessee's income certificate and ancillary documents, allowing the appeal in part and restricting the addition to Rs. 2,26,289.
Addition u/s 69A - treating the agricultural income as unexplained money - HELD THAT:- Rate of agricultural income estimated by the Ld. AO has no basis, and, in contrast, the assessee has placed on record an agricultural income certificate in support of its contention that it earned Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre of agricultural income.
Therefore, we find substance in the submissions of the assessee, and accordingly, we direct the Ld.AO to estimate the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre from nursery operations.
As the assessee had the total area of 20 acres in which he was having the nursery operations, therefore, considering the aforesaid estimate, we are of the considered view that in the absence of any other documentary evidence regarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards its operation Rs. 20,00,000/- can be attributed towards agricultural income from Nursery. Thus, the addition is restricted to the balance amount of Rs. 2,26,289/- in view of the facts and circumstances as noted above. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Tribunal should condone a 64-day delay in filing appeals where the appellant relied on a bona fide belief that no final order had been passed by the lower authority and had actively participated in appellate proceedings.
2. Whether initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153C (provisions pari materia to section 158BD) is valid in the absence of a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person confirming that the documents seized belonged to the other person.
3. Whether a satisfaction note, relied upon to initiate proceedings under section 153C, may lawfully include documents that were not seized during the search of the searched person (e.g., documents seized earlier during a survey of a different person), and whether inclusion of such documents vitiates the initiation of proceedings under section 153C.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Condonation of delay in filing appeals
Legal framework: Proceedings under the Income-tax Act permit filing appeals within prescribed periods; tribunals exercise discretion to condone delay upon furnishing sufficient cause and demonstrating bona fides.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered the facts of active participation in appellate proceedings, representation by counsel, and a plausible explanation that the appellant was under the bona fide impression that no final order had been passed.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the affidavit and record showing counsel's submissions before the lower authority on two dates and the appellant's subsequent discovery on the e-filing portal that an order had been uploaded. The Tribunal found no mala fide intention, continuous engagement with the appellate process, and a plausible reliance on the administrative conduct of the lower authority as sufficient cause.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the delay arises from a bona fide and demonstrable administrative misconception coupled with active participation in proceedings, the Tribunal may condone delay in the interest of justice. This is an applied exercise of discretion rather than a broad precedent.
Conclusion: Delay of 64 days was condoned; appeals admitted for adjudication on merits.
Issue 2 - Requirement of satisfaction note for valid initiation of proceedings under section 153C
Legal framework: Section 153C permits assessment of a person other than the searched person on documents found during search of a third party, but initiation is conditional on recording the satisfaction that the seized papers belong to that other person. The Tribunal treated provisions of section 153C as substantially similar/pari materia to section 158BD and applied the Supreme Court's guidance on recording satisfaction.
Precedent treatment (followed): The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision (referred to as M/s Calcutta Knitwears) which held that recording of a satisfaction note is a prerequisite and must be prepared by the AO of the searched person before transmission of records to the AO having jurisdiction over the other person. The Tribunal also relied on CBDT Circular No.24/2015 which reiterates and directs strict compliance with that judgment and treats section 153C as governed by the same guidelines.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the assessment record and noted the absence of any satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the searched person on the file produced to the assessee, despite repeated requests. The Tribunal emphasized the sequential and pre-condition nature of the satisfaction recording: (a) satisfaction must be recorded by the AO of the searched person that documents belong to the other person, (b) documents are then transferred, and (c) the receiving AO must then record satisfaction before initiating proceedings under section 153C. The Tribunal held that in the absence of the searched-person AO's satisfaction being on record, the statutory pre-condition was not complied with.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - initiation of proceedings under section 153C without the prescribed satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person is invalid; compliance with the Supreme Court's prescription and CBDT circular is mandatory. This forms the operative ratio for quashing assessments founded solely on documents from a search of a third party where no such satisfaction is recorded.
Conclusion: Proceedings initiated under section 153C were invalid and the assessment order passed thereunder was quashed; ground challenging validity (ground No.1) was allowed.
Issue 3 - Inclusion of documents not seized during the search of the searched person (use of survey/other papers) in the satisfaction note and its effect on section 153C proceedings
Legal framework: The scope of section 153C proceedings is tied to documents found and seized from the searched person; satisfaction must be in respect of papers actually found in the possession of the searched person and shown to belong to the other person.
Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished): The Tribunal applied the Calcutta Knitwears framework and CBDT circular to the factual matrix. It treated as impermissible any extension of the satisfaction note to include papers not found during the search of the searched person.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note relied upon in this case referred to a loose paper (page no.181 of Annexure LP) which was impounded earlier during a survey of a different person and was not part of the seized papers from the searched person. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer's satisfaction purportedly extended to documents seized on an earlier date from another person, thereby enlarging the scope of the satisfaction beyond what the statute contemplates. The Tribunal observed that such practice violates the procedural strictures and the rationale of the Supreme Court and CBDT guidance, and undermines the prerequisite nature of the satisfaction requirement.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - inclusion of documents not seized in the searched person's search (e.g., survey documents seized earlier from another person) in the satisfaction note vitiates the statutory prerequisite and renders initiation under section 153C invalid. This is an applied legal principle based on mandatory procedural compliance.
Conclusion: Where the satisfaction note extends to papers not seized during the search of the searched person, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C is invalid; the assessment based on such a note is quashed.
Issue 4 - Consequences for other grounds when primary legal defect succeeds
Legal framework: If the primary legal defect (invalid initiation of proceedings) disposes of the entire assessment, subsidiary challenges to additions, evidentiary issues and procedural complaints become academic.
Interpretation and reasoning: Having quashed the assessment on the foundational ground of invalid initiation under section 153C, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the remaining grounds (relating to section 69A additions, reliance on co-accused statements, denial of cross-examination, confrontation of documents, and alleged presumptions) as academic.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the foundational jurisdictional defect nullifies the assessment, secondary issues need not be adjudicated; they are rendered academic pending any lawful reassessment founded on proper procedure.
Conclusion: Other grounds were not adjudicated as they became academic following quashal of the assessment for failure to comply with section 153C prerequisites.
Overall Disposition
On the Tribunal's application of Supreme Court guidance and CBDT directions, proceedings initiated under section 153C that lack the required satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person, or that rely on documents not seized from that searched person, are invalid; the assessment orders founded on such proceedings are quashed. The Tribunal condoned the appeal filing delay on bona fide grounds and applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis to identical assessment years.
Initiation of proceedings in the name of the assessee u/s 153C - documents found and seized from the possession of the 3rd party in whose case searched action was carried out - satisfaction of the AO of such person is the pre-condition for initiating the proceedings in the hands of the assessee u/s 153C - HELD THAT:- Sole basis for the initiating of proceedings in the name of the assessee u/s 153C was based on the documents found and seized from the possession of the 3rd party in whose case searched action was carried out, therefore, the satisfaction of the AO of such person is the pre-condition for initiating the proceedings in the hands of the assessee u/s 153C of the Act.
Since, this process has not been followed in the case of the assessee as the assessee has demonstrated that Revenue has failed to bring on record the satisfaction note of the AO of the person searched despite of repeated requests, therefore, in our considered view, the proceedings initiated u/s 153C of the Act in the case of the assessee are invalid and, thus, consequent order passed is quashed.
This view is supported by the above referred Circular of the CBDT wherein CBDT observed that all the pending litigation with regard to recording of satisfaction note under section 158BD/153C should be withdrawn/not pressed if it does not meet the guideline laid down in the case of M/s Culcutta Knitwears [2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] in our considered opinion initiation of proceedings u/s 153C in the case of the assessee is invalid and accordingly the consequent order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is hereby quashed. Assessee appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the presence of an object in the trust deed that refers to religious or spiritual activities renders the trust's purposes "the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature" within the meaning of Explanation 3 to Section 80G, thereby disqualifying it from approval under Section 80G(5).
2. Whether a trust with incidental or limited religious objects can qualify for approval under Section 80G(5) if it complies with the statutory restriction in Section 80G(5B) (permissible upper limit for expenditure on religious purposes).
3. Whether the tax authority must examine actual expenditure on religious activities (and issue specific show-cause notice/opportunity to explain classification of expenses) before denying approval under Section 80G(5).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Effect of a religious object in the trust deed on charitable character under Explanation 3 to Section 80G
Legal framework: Explanation 3 to Section 80G defines "charitable purpose" and excludes any purpose "the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature." Section 80G(5) prescribes approval for trusts/organizations carrying out charitable purposes.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision which held that the statutory option permitting up to 5% of income for religious purposes implies that some trust objects may legitimately contain religious tenets without rendering the trust substantially religious.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the mere presence of an object referring to spiritual or cultural activities (e.g., propagation of a faith, maintenance of divinity, serving monks/saints, performing daily fasts) does not ipso facto convert the trust's overall purposes into those that are substantially religious. The correct inquiry is whether, taken as a whole, the trust's purposes are substantially religious in nature. The existence of incidental or permitted religious objects within the deed is not determinative of the statutory disqualification.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A solitary object with religious content in the trust deed does not by itself satisfy Explanation 3's threshold of "whole or substantially the whole" being religious; therefore, such presence cannot be the sole ground to deny approval under Section 80G(5). (Followed precedent of coordinate bench.)
Conclusion: The rejection of approval solely because object no.6 contains religious language was not sustainable; the object was not found to make the trust substantially religious in purpose.
Issue 2 - Interaction between Section 80G(5) and Section 80G(5B): permissible religious expenditure cap
Legal framework: Section 80G(5B) restricts the percentage of income that a charitable trust may spend on religious purposes (statutorily permissible limit), and compliance with Section 80G(5B) is relevant to approval under Section 80G(5).
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench view that the statutory allowance to spend up to a specified percentage on religious purposes indicates legislative recognition that some religious activity may be incidental and permissible.
Interpretation and reasoning: Even if a trust's objects contain religious elements, approval under Section 80G(5) remains available provided actual expenditure on religious activities does not exceed the permissible limit specified in Section 80G(5B). Thus, the proper test involves substantive compliance with the expenditure cap, not a purely textual reading of the objects clause.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Compliance with the quantitative restriction in Section 80G(5B) is a material condition for approval; where the trust's actual expenditure on religious purposes exceeds that limit, registration/approval can be denied. (Followed and applied.)
Conclusion: Presence of religious objects is permissible unless it results in actual religious expenditure exceeding the statutory ceiling; that factual determination is prerequisite to denial of approval.
Issue 3 - Necessity of examining actual expenditures and affording opportunity to explain before denying approval
Legal framework: Principles implicit in statutory scheme and natural justice require that material factual determinations (such as whether the trust spent more than the permissible percentage on religious activities) be examined, and the assessee be afforded an opportunity to explain or correct classification of expenses before denial.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the reasoning in the coordinate bench decision which recognized the need to verify compliance with Section 80G(5B) and to consider permitted incidental religious expenditure.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessing authority's order denied approval on the ground that an object was religious but did not make any finding on actual expenditure exceeding the permissible limit. The Court held that without adjudicating whether the assessee incurred religious expenditure beyond 5% of total income, denial was procedurally and substantively unsound. Accordingly, the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration limited to examination of actual expenditures and other conditions in Section 80G(5), with an opportunity to be heard.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Before rejecting an application for approval under Section 80G(5) where incidental religious objects exist, the authority must ascertain and record whether actual expenditure on religious activities exceeds the ceiling under Section 80G(5B) and must afford the applicant an opportunity to explain classification of expenses.
Conclusion: The impugned denial is set aside and remitted with specific directions that the authority examine whether religious expenditures exceeded the permissible 5% and ensure compliance with all conditions of Section 80G(5), allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. If expenditures are within permissible limits and other conditions are satisfied, approval should be granted.
Overall Disposition
The Court allowed the appeal for statistical purposes by setting aside the denial based solely on the presence of a religious object in the trust deed and remitted the matter for fresh consideration limited to factual determination of expenditures on religious activities and compliance with Section 80G(5) conditions, with an opportunity of being heard.
Denial of exemption u/s 80G(5) - “charitable purpose” OR "religious- purpose” - object involving propagation of Sanathan Dharm and developing knowledge of God-Goddesses was religious in nature and contravened the main condition of section 80G(5) - HELD THAT:- As held in the case of Gurukrupa Foundation [2025 (4) TMI 134 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] that since the assessee was given option as per statute to spend upto 5% of its total income for religious purpose, it was imperative that some of the objects would have tenets of religious nature, otherwise it might not be able to spend that 5% permissible expense for religious purpose. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the application u/s 80G(5) of the Act on the ground that one of the objects of the assessee was religious in nature, cannot be sustained. We don’t find this object to be substantially religious in nature so as to deny the approval.
A finding was also given in the case of Gurukrupa Foundation (supra) that if the assessee had spent more than 5% of its total income on religious purpose as stipulated under Section 80G(5B) of the Act, then the registration of the trust can be denied. Therefore, what was relevant to consider was whether the assessee had incurred any expenditure in excess of the permissible limit of 5% on the religious activities.
No finding in this regard has been given in the order of the Ld. CIT(E). We, therefore, deem it proper to set-aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to examine whether the assessee had incurred any expenditure on religious activities beyond the permissible limit of 5%. If not, the assessee should be allowed approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Act, after ensuring that all other conditions as stipulated u/s. 80G(5) of the Act are complied. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 based solely on AIR information of bank cash deposits constitute valid reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment where the deposits (a) are reflected in the assessee's books and (b) the source of deposits is not shown in the reasons recorded.
2. Whether the mere fact of cash deposits in bank accounts can, without more, form the requisite nexus or live link between the material on record and a prima facie belief of escapement of income as required by settled law.
3. Whether additions to income under section 68 (cash credits/additional capital) can be sustained where the basis for reopening ignores that the AIR information was already duly declared in the books of account and the AO proceeded on the assumption that bank deposits necessarily constitute undisclosed income.
4. Consequential issue: Effect of quashing reassessment on additions and penalty proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned reassessment.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of reopening under section 147/148 based on AIR bank-deposit information
Legal framework: Reopening under section 147/148 requires the Assessing Officer to have a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded must have a rational connection or live link between the material coming to the AO's notice and the formation of belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment (principle from ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das).
Precedent treatment: Followed and applied the line of authorities including Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali (68 SOT 197), Amrik Singh v. ITO (159 ITD 329), and the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Indo Arab Air Services which require more than mere information of bank deposits to form reasons to believe. Lakhmani Mewal Das is cited for the requirement of rational connection.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the reasons recorded for reopening and noted they rested only on AIR information of cash deposits. The AO treated the deposits as indicia of undisclosed income without establishing a nexus showing that the deposits represented income omitted from return. The Court emphasized that AIR information alone, reflecting bank deposits, does not demonstrate escapement of income if the deposits are reflected in books and no further material shows non-disclosure in returns.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reopening cannot be sustained where reasons recorded are based solely on bank-deposit information without a nexus to escapement of income; such information, in isolation, is insufficient to form a reason to believe. (Follows ratio in Bir Bahadur Singh and Lakhmani Mewal Das.)
Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 based solely on AIR bank-deposit information was unsustainable; the reassessment was therefore liable to be quashed.
Issue 2 - Whether mere bank deposits constitute undisclosed income
Legal framework: Section 68 deals with unexplained cash credits; however, formation of belief for reassessment under section 147 requires prima facie material indicating escapement of income. The test is existence of material with a relevant nexus, not mere desirability of inquiry.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed Bir Bahadur Singh and Amrik Singh which hold that deposits per se do not equate to escapement; the Delhi High Court in Indo Arab Air Services reinforces that AO must examine returns and books to see if deposits are undisclosed in returns before forming belief.
Interpretation and reasoning: The AO's approach proceeded on a "fallacious assumption" that bank deposits equal undisclosed income and neglected that sources of deposits may not be income or may have been disclosed in books/returns. The Court cited authorities stating reasons must indicate escapement and not merely provide grounds for further inquiry. The assessment order itself showed that AIR information was available and the deposits were declared in books, undermining the asserted escapement basis.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Mere existence of bank deposits in AIR does not, without additional corroborative material establishing non-disclosure in returns or nexus to income-producing activity, justify treatment of those deposits as undisclosed income for reopening.
Conclusion: Bank deposits recorded in AIR cannot be equated to undisclosed income absent a demonstrable link to escapement; AO's assumption to the contrary was legally flawed.
Issue 3 - Sustenance of additions to income (additional capital / section 68) when AIR information is declared in books
Legal framework: Additions under section 68 require unexplained cash credits; however, assessment proceedings and additions following reopening must be predicated on validly formed reasons to believe under section 147. If reassessment initiation is invalid, consequential additions cannot stand.
Precedent treatment: Consistent with the authorities followed (Bir Bahadur Singh; Amrik Singh; Indo Arab), if the reopening itself is vitiated due to lack of valid reasons, all consequential actions including additions are invalid.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that AIR information had been duly reflected in the assessee's books and that AO failed to show that the AIR material was not disclosed in the return; the AO thus lacked the necessary nexus to conclude escapement. The addition of Rs. 9,01,205/- to income on account of additional capital was therefore founded on an invalid reopening and on a flawed assumption that the bank deposits were unexplained income.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Additions made pursuant to a reassessment initiated on inadequate reasons (mere deposits/AIR without nexus to escapement) are unsustainable; such additions fall with quashing of reassessment.
Conclusion: The addition to income on account of additional capital could not be sustained and assessment was quashed accordingly.
Issue 4 - Effect on penalty proceedings and other unargued grounds
Legal framework: Penalty proceedings and other consequential measures flow from a valid assessment order; if the assessment is quashed, consequential penal measures based solely on that assessment may become academic or unsustainable unless separately supported.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treated grounds not argued as academic once the primary legal ground succeeded, following the reasoning that without a subsisting reassessment the related additions and penalty actions lack foundation.
Interpretation and reasoning: Since the reassessment was quashed for legal infirmity at the initiation stage, additions and the reasons for invoking penalty under section 271(1)(c) that were based on the reassessment are rendered academic. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate other grounds not argued.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Quashing of reassessment on legal grounds renders consequential additions and penalty proceedings unsustainable when those consequences rest solely on the impugned reassessment. Obiter - Where separate independent material exists justifying penalty, a different conclusion may follow (not decided here).
Conclusion: The reassessment being quashed, the additions and penalty proceedings initiated thereunder became academic and were not adjudicated further; the appeal was allowed.
Cross-references
See Issue 1 and Issue 2 for interlinked analysis: validity of reopening (Issue 1) depends on whether bank deposits constitute a basis for belief of escapement (Issue 2). Issue 3 follows from Issues 1-2 since additions arise only from valid reassessment. Issue 4 flows from quashing in Issues 1-3.
Addition to income on the basis of Additional Capital introduced by the Appellant - Information of AIR on the basis of which 147 was invoked - HELD THAT:- AO was not justified in making the addition to income on the basis of Additional Capital introduced by the Appellant even though it was not having any mention in the AIR information.
Information of AIR on the basis of which 147 was invoked was found to be duly declared in the books of account. Accordingly, the assessment order is hereby quashed. Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether a statement of purpose in Form No. 10 described as "for the objects of the trust" satisfies the requirements of Section 11(2) when supported by contemporaneous board resolution specifying the purpose (scholarships/educational purposes).
2. Whether vagueness or generality of the purpose as stated in Form No. 10 is fatal to claim of accumulation under Section 11(2) where the accumulated funds are subsequently applied for a specified object within the permissible period.
3. What is the consequence of subsequent utilisation of accumulated income (within five years) for trust objects vis-à-vis disallowance under Section 11(2).
4. Whether reliance on a prior Tribunal decision with identical facts is authoritative (followed/distinguished) and the legal effect of such reliance on the present appeal.
5. Whether alleged defects in appellate procedure (failure to consider submissions and failure to allow video hearing) warranted interference with the order on merits.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Sufficiency of Form No. 10 stating "for the objects of the trust" when supported by Board Resolution specifying scholarships (educational purpose)
Legal framework: Section 11(2) requires that intention to accumulate income be communicated in Form No. 10 specifying amount, period and purpose; Form No. 10 is the statutory vehicle to notify accumulation.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referred to a prior Bench decision with materially identical facts where disallowance under Section 11(2) was deleted after examining actual utilisation of accumulated funds; that decision was followed rather than distinguished or overruled.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recognised the statutory sanctity of Form No. 10 but held that the broad wording used in Form No. 10 ("for the objects of the trust") is not necessarily fatal where contemporaneous records (board resolution) clearly specify the purpose (scholarships/educational purposes). The Tribunal examined the record, noting that the Board Resolution dated 20/09/2016 specified scholarship/educational purpose and that there was an admission before the appellate authority that the accumulated amount was spent by 31/03/2021-within five years. Given these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the substantive purpose was established despite the generic language in Form No. 10.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A generic description in Form No. 10 does not per se invalidate an accumulation claim under Section 11(2) where contemporaneous documentary evidence (e.g., board resolution) specifies the purpose and the accumulated funds are applied accordingly within the statutory period. Obiter - observations respecting the sanctity of Form No. 10 and general statements about its statutory role, insofar as they do not override the concluded ratio.
Conclusions: The Tribunal held that vagueness in Form No. 10 would not be fatal where the purpose is evidenced by the Board Resolution and actual utilisation conforms to that purpose; directed verification of the Board Resolution and utilisation by the Assessing Officer and deletion of disallowance to the extent of verified utilisation.
Issue 2 - Effect of subsequent utilisation of accumulated income within the permissible period
Legal framework: Section 11(2) permits accumulation for specified periods and purposes; Section 11(5) (and related provisions) govern investment and application; accumulated income must be applied within the permissible period (five years being the operative period in the facts).
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on a prior Tribunal decision that examined utilisation in subsequent years and deleted disallowances; that precedential approach was followed in the present matter.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasised that Revenue did not dispute utilisation of the accumulated funds in subsequent years. Given the admitted expenditure of the entire accumulated amount before 31/03/2021 (within five years), the substantive compliance requirement of applying accumulated income to the declared objects was met. Therefore, the initial infirmity in Form No. 10's wording was rendered immaterial by actual compliance.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Actual utilisation of accumulated income for declared trust objects within the permissible period cures the defect of generic wording in the statutory notice of accumulation; the disallowance must be deleted proportionate to verified utilisation. Obiter - any broader suggestion that Form No. 10 may always be relaxed is not treated as binding beyond the factual matrix.
Conclusions: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the Board Resolution (certified copy to be filed) and the subsequent utilisation of INR 62,28,989/-. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete disallowance to the extent the accumulated amount was utilized for scholarships/educational purposes as per the Board Resolution.
Issue 3 - Treatment of prior Tribunal decision and its precedential weight
Legal framework: Decisions of coordinate benches are persuasive where facts align; the Tribunal considered an earlier decision on identical facts.
Precedent treatment: The earlier Mumbai Bench Tribunal decision was followed as factually identical and supportive of deleting the disallowance after examining utilisation.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the prior decision as instructive and consistent with the present record (board resolution plus subsequent utilisation), thereby reinforcing the conclusion that the disallowance should not stand to the extent of verified application.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where facts are identical, the approach in the prior case to verify utilisation and allow deletion was applied; no attempt to distinguish or overrule the prior finding was made.
Conclusions: Reliance on the prior decision supported remand and deletion directions; no contrary precedent was invoked to sustain the disallowance.
Issue 4 - Procedural complaints regarding opportunity to be heard and request for video hearing
Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity to be heard; appellate authorities must provide reasonable hearing opportunities including, where appropriate, video conferencing.
Precedent treatment: The appellant alleged denial of adequate opportunity and refusal of video hearing before the CIT(A); however, the Tribunal did not find these procedural complaints determinative of merits and treated the grounds as allowed for statistical purposes.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not disturb the impugned order on procedural grounds; instead, the substantive remand and directions were issued. Procedural grounds (grounds 7-9) were recorded as allowed for statistical purposes only, indicating no substantive relief was granted on those complaints.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - The permitting of procedural grounds for statistics indicates the Tribunal did not find a sufficient procedural violation to dispose of the matter on that basis.
Conclusions: Procedural complaints did not result in separate relief; the appeal was disposed on substantive grounds with remand for verification.
Overall Disposition
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order to the extent indicated, remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the Board Resolution and actual utilisation of the accumulated amount for scholarships/educational purposes within the permissible period, and directed deletion of the disallowance proportionate to verified utilisation; vagueness in Form No. 10 held not fatal in the factual matrix. Procedural grounds were allowed for statistical purposes only.
Denial of benefit of section 11 - specific outline for purpose of accumulation was not mentioned in Form 10 - Assessee is a charitable trust engaged in the educational activities which includes granting of scholarships to the students
HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Revenue that in the subsequent years the accumulated funds amounting to INR. 62,28,989/- was not utilized by the Assessee.
We deem it appropriate to set aside the Order, dated 14/05/2025, passed by the CIT(A) and remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer with the following directions.
We direct the AO to verify Board Resolution, dated 20/09/2016, and for the same the Assessee is directed to file a certified copy of the Board Resolution before the AO.
AO is further directed to verify the utilization of accumulation in subsequent years by the Assessee as per the Board Resolution [i.e. for the object of the trust – Scholarships (Educational Purposes)]. We hold that to this extent we hold that the vagueness of the purpose of accumulation as stated in Form 10 would not be fatal and the Assessee would be entitled to claim benefit of Section 11(2) in respect of the same. Accordingly, the disallowance to the extent the accumulated amount has been utilized for the aforesaid purpose shall be deleted by the Assessing Officer. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged bogus purchases and unexplained expenditure from Bright Corporation was sustainable.
Analysis: The assessee produced purchase invoices, delivery challans, ledger accounts, inventory registers, bank statements showing payments through banking channels, and vehicle movement and lorry receipt details. These materials were not dealt with by the Assessing Officer, and the purchases were shown to have been made prior to cancellation of the supplier's GST registration. On these facts, the allegation of unexplained expenditure was not established merely on suspicion or on the basis of GST-related information about the supplier.
Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was not justified and the relief granted by the first appellate authority was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessment addition did not survive judicial scrutiny, and the Revenue's challenge failed while the assessee obtained relief on the disputed purchase addition.
Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained expenditure cannot be sustained where the assessee substantiates the purchases with contemporaneous documentary evidence and the Revenue fails to dislodge that evidence with a reasoned examination.
Addition u/s 69C- assessee entered into sham/bogus transaction - information received from the GST department that supplier does not have any genuine business activity - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- AO has not at all taken into account the details filed by the assessee vide reply dated 25-01-2023 and 27-01-2023. These details reveal that the assessee has given the details of ledger account of Bright Corporation in assessee’s books account invoice issued from Bright Corporation, delivery challan issued by Bright Corporation, inventory register regarding goods received and goods sold as well as bank statement clarifying the payment made either through NEFT/RTGS transfers.
Assessee has also given the details of inward and outward entry and exit of vehicles regarding purchases made from Bright Corporation as well as lorry receipts and log books of warehouses as well.
These documents were totally ignored by the AO and has not at all disputed by the AO at any point of time. Besides this, cancellation of GST registration was w.e.f. 01- 01-2019 and the purchases made by the assessee from Bright Corporation was prior to the said date i.e. 01-01- 2019.
AO was not right in making addition when the assessee has explained all the expenditure related to the purchase. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an institution/trust whose objects, as appearing from the trust deed, are confined to a particular religious community/caste qualifies for approval under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) (i.e., for donations to be eligible for deduction) which requires benefit to the public at large.
2. Whether an unproduced, alleged amendment to the trust deed (purporting to remove community-specific limitations and make activities non-discriminatory) can be relied upon to establish eligibility for section 80G(5) approval when not placed on record before the approving authority or the Tribunal.
3. Whether cancellation of provisional approval under section 80G and rejection of application in Form 10AB is sustainable where the trust deed on record demonstrates community-specific objects and no credible evidence contradicts that finding.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Legal framework and applicability of section 80G(5) to community-specific trusts
Legal framework: Clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) conditions eligibility for deduction on the institution/fund being for the benefit of the public at large; relevant statutory framework and administrative rules considered include Rule 11AA(1), Rule 11AA(2), section 2(15), Explanation 3 to section 80G(5) and section 80G(5B).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the objects as expressed in the trust deed and found they explicitly provide for education and related benefits for members of a specified community (Shri Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj). The Court applied the statutory criterion that institutions must operate for the public at large to qualify under clause (iii), and concluded that an object confined to a particular caste or religious community falls outside that requirement.
Precedent treatment: No earlier judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the reasoning; the conclusion follows from literal and purposive reading of the statutory requirement that benefits be for the public at large.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the holding that an institution whose objects are confined to a specific religious community/caste does not satisfy clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) and therefore is not entitled to approval for deductible donations.
Conclusion: The trust, as per its trust deed on record, does not qualify for approval under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) because its objects are community-specific and not for the public at large.
Issue 2 - Evidentiary requirement for deed amendments and effect of unproduced amendments
Legal framework: Administrative procedure for grant/cancellation of 80G approval requires the applicant to substantiate eligibility; the material facts relevant to statutory qualification must be placed before the approving authority.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee alleged an amendment to the trust deed removing discriminatory/community-specific limitations and submitted that current activities were charitable and non-discriminatory. However, no copy of any amendment was filed before the Commissioner (Exemption) or the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly treated the absence of documentary proof as fatal, holding that the original trust deed on record controls the determination of objects and eligibility.
Precedent treatment: None cited; the Tribunal applied basic evidentiary principles - assertions of amendment must be supported by production of the modified instrument.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an alleged amendment to the constitutive instrument that would alter eligibility under section 80G(5) must be produced and proved before the approving authority/Tribunal; in absence of such evidence, the original deed governs the inquiry.
Conclusion: The unproduced amendment could not be relied upon to establish eligibility; the Tribunal upheld the finding that the trust deed on record established community-specific objects.
Issue 3 - Validity of rejection of Form 10AB application and cancellation of provisional approval
Legal framework: The Commissioner (Exemption) has authority to scrutinise Form 10AB applications, issue show-cause notices, require particulars and cancel provisional approvals if statutory conditions are not met.
Interpretation and reasoning: The record shows statutory notices were issued and the assessee submitted replies, but did not provide the key documentary evidence (amendment). The Tribunal reviewed the materials and found no credible evidence to controvert the CIT(E)'s finding that objects are community-specific. Given that the statutory criterion (benefit to public at large) was unmet on the instrument of trust, rejection of the application and cancellation of provisional approval were appropriate.
Precedent treatment: No contrary authority was invoked; the decision follows administrative law and statutory compliance principles.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - rejection of a Form 10AB application and cancellation of provisional 80G approval is sustainable where the trust deed on record demonstrates exclusion of the public at large and the applicant fails to substantiate any contrary amendment or evidence.
Conclusion: The Commissioner's rejection of the Form 10AB application and cancellation of provisional approval were upheld; the appeal was dismissed for failure to prove eligibility under section 80G(5).
Cross-references and related points
1. The Tribunal's conclusions on Issues 1-3 are interlinked: the determinative factor was the constitutive instrument (trust deed) on record; absence of a produced amendment meant the statutory test of benefit to the public at large could not be satisfied.
2. Procedural compliance (issuance of notices and filing of replies) was present, but procedural engagement did not substitute for the substantive requirement of producing documentary proof that would alter the deed's stated objects.
Denial of benefit u/s 80G(5) - rejection of application in Form 10AB and also cancelled the provisional approval - as per revenue objective of trust deed is confined for specific community, i.e., Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj and not for benefit of public at large - HELD THAT:- perused the trust deed from where the objects of the trust clearly reveal that the fund was open for the education of the boys and girls of Shri Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj.
AR submitted that an amendment was made in the trust to carry out charitable activities without discrimination of caste. Copy of the said amendment has not been filed either before the CIT(E) or before the Tribunal.
Therefore, the finding of the CIT(E) that it was not for the benefit of public at large and the objects of the trust are confined for the specific community, i.e., Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj has not been controverted by any credible evidence. Therefore, we do not find any justification to differ from the finding of the CIT(E). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Assessing Officer correctly applied the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act to an institution that is an approved research association under section 35(1)(ii) and not a trust registered under section 12A.
2. Whether depreciation of Rs. 3,04,850 could be denied under section 11(6) on the ground that the purchase value of the capital assets had earlier been treated as an application of income (thereby resulting in a double deduction), where the institution did not claim the purchase value as a revenue expenditure in any prior year.
3. Whether the institution is entitled to carry forward an excess application/deficit to subsequent years and, if so, whether the Assessing Officer should be directed to consider carry-forward relief in light of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the institution.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of sections 11 and 12 to an approved research association under section 35(1)(ii)
Legal framework: Sections 11 and 12 deal with application of income and exemptions available to charitable/religious trusts or institutions registered under the relevant provisions (e.g., section 12A registration or similar statutory recognition). Section 35(1)(ii) concerns deduction/recognition for expenditure on scientific research and the statutory scheme for approval of research associations.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the factual distinction between registration/approval regimes rather than on any single precedent; the appellant drew the Tribunal's attention to judicial pronouncements on related relief (see Issue 3), which the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider separately.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer proceeded on a mistaken presumption that the institution was a trust registered under section 12A and therefore applied the provisions of sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory status actually enjoyed by the institution - approval as a research association under section 35(1)(ii) notified by the Central Government - and concluded that the specific registration status required for the application of sections 11 and 12 was absent.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an entity is not registered under the statutory scheme that triggers sections 11/12 relief (e.g., section 12A registration), the Assessing Officer should not apply sections 11 and 12 by presumption; the correct statutory classification governs applicability of those sections. Obiter - observations about the general differences between approved research associations and trusts, insofar as not necessary for the specific disposal, are incidental.
Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that sections 11 and 12 were not applicable because the institution is an approved research association under section 35(1)(ii) and not a trust registered under section 12A; the Assessing Officer's application of those provisions was erroneous.
Issue 2 - Denial of depreciation under section 11(6) where purchase price of the asset was not claimed as application of income
Legal framework: Section 11(6) addresses situations where deduction/exemption has been allowed by treating capital application as application of income, and bars double deduction of both capital application and depreciation. The general tax principle prevents double allowance of the same outlay by permitting either capital treatment or depreciation but not both when the capital cost has been treated as application of income.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal did not cite a controlling precedent to resolve this specific fact question; instead it applied the statutory logic of section 11(6) to the established facts that no claim for purchase value as application of income had been made in any earlier year.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the appellant's uncontroverted assertion (and the absence of contrary record) that the purchase value of the assets had not been claimed as an application of income or as a revenue expenditure in any prior year. Given that factual premise, the fundamental rationale behind section 11(6) (preventing double allowance) did not arise. Accordingly, disallowance of depreciation on the ground of double deduction was incorrect.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where there is no prior claim treating the purchase price of capital assets as application of income, section 11(6) cannot be invoked to deny depreciation; depreciation is allowable if the capital cost was not earlier treated as application of income. Obiter - general comments about the policy underlying section 11(6) are ancillary.
Conclusion: The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition relating to depreciation of Rs. 3,04,850, holding that the Assessing Officer erred in denying depreciation under section 11(6) absent any earlier claim for the purchase value as an application of income.
Issue 3 - Entitlement to carry forward excess application/deficit and direction to Assessing Officer to consider judicial pronouncements
Legal framework: The rules and judicial principles concerning carry forward of deficits/excess application for charitable/institutional entities govern whether un-applied income or deficits in a year may be carried forward to subsequent years and set parameters for giving benefit where statutory conditions are satisfied.
Precedent Treatment: The appellant placed reliance on multiple judicial pronouncements (authorities not reproduced here) supporting the claim for carry-forward of deficits/excess application. The Tribunal noted these authorities but observed that the question of carry forward did not arise from the assessment order as issued.
Interpretation and reasoning: Although the carry-forward issue was not specifically adjudicated in the assessment order, the Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions and the cited authorities sufficiently material to merit consideration. Rather than deciding entitlement on the appellate record, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to take submissions and the referenced case law into account and to allow carry-forward relief if the institution is found entitled on application of the relevant legal principles.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter/procedural direction - the Tribunal did not lay down a binding rule on carry-forward entitlement in the present appeal but instructed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter in light of the authorities cited and applicable legal tests; the Tribunal thus preserved the question for fact-specific determination by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the appellant's submissions and the cited judicial pronouncements on carry forward of deficit; if, after such consideration, the institution is found entitled to carry forward the deficit (identified by the appellant as Rs. 8,71,246), that benefit should be allowed.
Relief and Disposition
On the issues decided on the merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the Assessing Officer's disallowance of depreciation, and directed reconsideration of the carry-forward issue in accordance with the directions above.
Denying claim of depreciation to assessee trust - double deduction - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant is not registered under section 12A, and approved under 35(1)(ii), provisions of section 11& 12 of the Act are not applicable. As the appellant institution argues that it has not claimed the purchase value of asset as revenue expenditure and hence the Ld. AO cannot disallow depreciation as double deduction.
If the appellant institution has not claimed the purchase value of asset as deduction/revenue expenditure, the appellant is entitled to depreciation. AO is directed accordingly. Hence, the appellant succeeds in this appeal and Ld. AO is directed to delete the addition relating to depreciation.
Carry forward of deficit - This issue was not emanating from the assessment order. Anyhow, AO is directed to take the submissions and cases-law cited and if the institution is entitled for carry forward deficit the benefit should be allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether transfer pricing (TP) adjustments on Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses can be sustained as an international transaction under section 92B read with section 92C where no agreement/arrangement with associated enterprises (AEs) to share or reimburse AMP exists.
2. Whether payment of royalty for technology and trademarks to related entities is at arm's length and allowable where prior approvals/agreements exist and similar issues were decided in earlier assessment years.
3. Whether service fees paid to related entities for regional/global services can be adjusted where the TP officer (TPO) has used ad hoc estimations (e.g., estimated salaries, man-hours) instead of methods prescribed under section 92C(1).
4. Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted where own funds/reserves exceed investments and certain suo-moto disallowances have been admitted by the assessee.
5. Whether allocation of expenditure between specific manufacturing units (Baddi Unit-I & II) affecting deduction under section 80IC is to be disturbed where a coordinate bench has earlier accepted the allocation method for prior years.
6. Whether interest under section 234C was levied correctly when computed on assessed income instead of returned income.
7. Whether carry-forward credit of MAT should be granted where the earlier year assessment (source of carry-forward) requires factual examination.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - TP adjustment on AMP expenses
Legal framework: Applicability of Chapter X (sections 92B, 92C, 92F) requires first establishing existence of an "international transaction" as defined in section 92B; ALP is then determined by one of the methods in section 92C(1). The Explanation to section 92B lists illustrative deemed international transactions.
Precedent treatment: Decisions of higher fora and coordinate benches (including judgments dealing with AMP such as Maruti Suzuki, Bausch & Lomb, Whirlpool and earlier coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own matters) were applied. The Tribunal emphasized that mere incidental or indirect benefit to AE is insufficient to constitute an international transaction (Maruti Suzuki; Bausch & Lomb). Sony Ericsson was noted as negating applicability of BLT for establishing an international transaction via benchmarking of AMP.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court explained that an international transaction necessitates an agreement/arrangement/understanding obliging the taxpayer to incur AMP for the AE or to share costs. Absent such agreement, AMP spend focused on the taxpayer's local product promotion (local messaging, local language campaigns) and paid to third parties in India cannot be recharacterized as an international transaction merely because AE benefits incidentally. The Tribunal underscored distinction between "function" and "transaction" - not every function expense equates to a transaction. The absence of any machinery provision in Chapter X to convert imagined transactions into taxable international transactions was stressed; quantitative adjustments by declaring AMP 'excessive' and computing a notional international transaction were rejected. The Court held that tax authorities cannot assume the role of commercial decision-maker to decide how much an assessee should spend under section 37 rationale when invoking TP provisions.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - AMP expenditure not an international transaction in absence of agreement/arrangement; Chapter X cannot be invoked merely on perceived indirect benefit to AE; ALP cannot be based on a presumed transaction. Obiter - observations on commercial context and advertising campaigns supporting factual findings.
Conclusion: TP adjustments on AMP expenses deleted; grounds relating to AMP (Grounds 2-21) allowed.
Issue 2 - Royalty payments for technology and trademarks to related entities
Legal framework: Chapter X and general principles of arm's length pricing; recognition of governmental/ regulatory approvals affecting royalty rates (e.g., SIA/RBI approvals) and contractual terms governing technical know-how and trademark royalty.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own earlier years (AYs 2002-2012 series) were applied. Those decisions held royalty payments allowable where agreements and regulatory approvals supported the payments and where comparables/group practice corroborated ALP.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reviewed the licensing/collaboration agreements and subsequent amendments, regulatory approvals for royalty rates, and comparative practice across group companies. Where documentation and approvals showed authorization to avail technical know-how and trademark rights (including sub-licensing provisions or amendments effective retrospectively), the payments were held to be at arm's length. The Court rejected recharacterisation where distinct agreements existed for technical know-how and trademark and where prior years' consistent treatment by authorities existed.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Royalty payments for technology and trademark held at arm's length and adjustments deleted where agreements/approvals and consistent prior treatment exist. Obiter - reliance on comparability and group practice as supportive evidence.
Conclusion: TP adjustments on royalty payments to related entities deleted; Grounds 22-27 allowed.
Issue 3 - Service fees to related entities (regional/global services) and use of non-statutory methods by TPO
Legal framework: Section 92C(1) mandates determination of ALP by one of the prescribed methods; Rule 10B prescribes procedures. The word "shall" in section 92C(1) was interpreted as mandatory, precluding use of ad hoc or extraneous methodologies.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate-bench and Special Bench authority (e.g., Kodak India, LG Electronics, Kodak/Barclays/Vedanta precedents) applied to hold that the TPO cannot invent methods outside the five prescribed methods; use of ad hoc estimates (salary, man-hours) is impermissible.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that TPO's computation based on estimations of salary and man-hours constituted an alien method not sanctioned by section 92C(1). The mandatory nature of prescribed methods was emphasized; absent use of a statutory method, the TP adjustment is unsustainable. The coordinate-bench decisions of the assessee's earlier years were followed to delete adjustments where TPO adopted adhoc computations.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ALP must be determined by one of the methods in section 92C(1); TPO cannot adopt ad hoc computations; adjustments based on such methods must be deleted. Obiter - discussion on interpretation of "any of the following methods" and scope of "any".
Conclusion: TP adjustments on service fees where TPO used ad hoc methods deleted; Grounds 28-29 allowed.
Issue 4 - Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D
Legal framework: Section 14A and Rule 8D govern disallowance of expenditure in relation to income exempt from tax; jurisprudence recognizes that no disallowance is warranted when own funds/reserves suffice to cover investments yielding exempt income.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate-bench decisions and High Court precedents (e.g., HDFC Bank) applied; earlier coordinate-bench rulings in the assessee's cases remitted certain heads (direct/indirect expenses) for verification while holding that interest disallowance is not justified where own funds exceed investments.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient own funds (reserves and surplus exceeding investments) and had made a suo-moto disallowance for treasury salaries. Following earlier rulings, interest disallowance under section 14A was not warranted; direct/indirect expense disallowance was remitted to AO for re-adjudication in light of admitted suo-moto disallowance and to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - No interest disallowance under section 14A where own funds exceed investments; remand of verification for direct/indirect expenses is appropriate. Obiter - procedural observations on recording satisfaction by AO.
Conclusion: No interest disallowance; issue remitted for verification of direct/indirect expense disallowance - Grounds 30-31 allowed for statistical purposes (remitted).
Issue 5 - Allocation of expenditure between Baddi Unit-I & II (affecting section 80IC claim)
Legal framework: Allocation of costs must follow rational and consistent bases; relief under section 80IC depends on correct allocation.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own earlier years accepted the allocation method for material, employee cost and depreciation; earlier remand limited to verification of operating & establishment (O&E) expenses only.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found facts and allocation basis identical to prior years where the AO had accepted allocation for certain heads and the coordinate bench had deleted disallowances. Given identical factual matrix and prior acceptance, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance and allowed the section 80IC claim.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Earlier accepted allocation methodology binds in identical factual situations; disallowance deleted. Obiter - emphasis on consistency with prior findings.
Conclusion: Allocation disallowances deleted; Grounds 32-33 allowed.
Issue 6 - Levy of interest under section 234C
Legal framework: Section 234C prescribes interest on instalment shortfalls calculated on returned income; interest should not be computed on assessed income.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that AO computed interest on assessed income contrary to statutory language and remitted the matter to AO to recompute interest as per the provision.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Interest under section 234C must be computed on returned income; recomputation required if AO used assessed income. Obiter - none.
Conclusion: Ground 34 allowed for statistical purposes - remand to AO to examine records and recompute interest correctly.
Issue 7 - Grant of MAT credit (carry-forward)
Legal framework: MAT credit carry-forward depends on finality and correctness of earlier year assessments which gave rise to the credit.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that earlier year (source year) assessment status needed factual examination (earlier assessment quashed for limitation in a prior order) and therefore remitted the issue to AO to examine assessment records and grant MAT credit accordingly.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - MST credit grant contingent on factual verification of earlier year assessment; remand appropriate. Obiter - none.
Conclusion: Ground 35 allowed for statistical purposes - remitted to AO for examination and appropriate grant of carry-forward MAT credit.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The Tribunal, following coordinate-bench precedents in the assessee's own case and relevant authorities, deleted the TP adjustments concerning AMP expenses, royalty payments, and service fees where statutory prerequisites (existence of international transaction, use of methods under section 92C) were not satisfied; remitted certain factual and mechanical issues (Rule 8D direct/indirect verification, section 234C interest recomputation, MAT credit) to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration; and allowed/partly allowed the appeal in accordance with the above findings.
TP adjustment made towards AMP expenses, Disallowance of payment of royalty on technology paid deleted,TP adjustment made by the TPO towards services feesis liable to be deleted as relying on A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 [2023 (9) TMI 1712 - ITAT MUMBAI]
TP adjustment towards global services rendered by Mondelez International Holdings LLC also in the same way by applying adhoc estimation of salary cost and man hours. Therefore our decision with respect regional service fee paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Respectfully following the above order of the co-ordinate bench [2023 (9) TMI 1712 - ITAT MUMBAI] we allow in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D - HELD THAT:- We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee’s own case for [2023 (9) TMI 1712 - ITAT MUMBAI] notice that the assessee is having sufficient own funds which is more than the investments made. Further the assessee has made a suo moto disallowance towards salary paid to personnel working in Treasury Department. Therefore, remit the issue of verification of direct / indirect expense disallowance to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication in the light of suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee.
Allocation of expenditure at Baddi Unit-I and Unit-II - As observed from the working of allocation of subjected expenses furnished by the Ld. AR before us, that the Ld.AO had adopted a basis for allocation which is not in conformity with the basis approved by the ITAT in its earlier orders, we thus in terms of aforesaid observations delete the disallowance made by the A.O. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No. 32 & 33 raised by the assessee company are allowed.
Levy of interest u/s. 234C - Counsel submitted that the A.O has levied interest u/s. 234C of the Act on the assessed income whereas the provisions of Section 234C talks about levy of interest on income returned. We, therefore, remit the issue back to the A.O with a direction to examine the records and re-compute the interest u/s. 234C as per provisions of the said section.
Non grant of MAT credit - We remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to examine the status as per assessment records and accordingly give credit for the carried forward MAT for the year under consideration.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 2,68,67,091 made under section 92CA(3) for payments to Associated Enterprises for R&D and other support services is sustainable where the assessee had adopted TNMM with the AE as tested party and maintained contemporaneous documentation.
2. Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) could reject the assessee's TNMM benchmarking and apply the "Other Method" (Rule 10AB) without identifying comparable uncontrolled transactions or conducting a comparability analysis.
3. Whether separate disallowance/adjustment for intra-group services is impermissible where such services were included within the cost base used under TNMM, resulting in potential double taxation.
4. Whether the TPO's ad hoc reduction of service expense to 50% of transaction value (and corresponding partial allowance) is permissible where there is no application of a prescribed ALP method or detailed comparable/valuation analysis.
5. Whether the TPO/DRP were entitled to examine and question the rendition, need, receipt and benefit of intra-group services (IGS) and, on the material before them, to determine ALP (including nil or partial ALP) on the basis of the need/benefit/rendition tests.
6. Whether remand to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation is appropriate where the TPO invoked the "Other Method" but made an adhoc adjustment rather than following the statutory procedure for computing ALP.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Sustainability of transfer pricing adjustment of INR 2,68,67,091
Legal framework: Section 92C requires determination of arm's length price (ALP) by applying one of the specified methods (s. 92C(1)); section 92CA empowers the TPO to compute ALP; Rule 10D/Rule 10AB and the TP documentation requirements under s. 92D/Rule 10D govern methodology and evidence.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered jurisdictional and coordinate decisions which hold that adhoc adjustments unsupported by prescribed methods are unsustainable, but also noted decisions permitting rigorous scrutiny where rendition/benefit tests are not satisfied.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that the assessee had adopted TNMM aggregating transactions and that substantial contemporaneous documentation was placed on record. The DRP accepted deletion of the R&D component but sustained the adjustment for other support services. The Tribunal found that while invocation of the "Other Method" by TPO could be justifiable where receipt/benefit/rendition are questioned, the specific adjustment (50% adhoc reduction) did not follow the statutory procedure for computing ALP.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ALP determinations must follow statutory methodology and cannot be based on arbitrary percentage reductions without application of an ALP method and comparable analysis. Obiter - weight given to specific evidentiary deficits in this factual matrix (e.g., perceived vagueness of inter-company agreement) is fact-specific.
Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the adjustment relating to R&D services should be deleted (consistent with DRP) but that the remaining adjustment in respect of other support services could not be sustained as computed (adhoc 50%); the issue was restored to Assessing Officer for fresh computation in accordance with statutory procedure after allowing the assessee opportunity to produce evidence.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Permissibility of rejecting TNMM and applying "Other Method" without comparables
Legal framework: Rule 10AB prescribes that the "Other Method" must take into account prices charged in same or similar uncontrolled transactions; section 92C(3) requires satisfaction of preconditions before rejecting the taxpayer's method (e.g., method not permitted, data unreliable, incorrect application, inadequate documentation).
Precedent treatment: The assessee relied on authorities condemning adhoc adjustments where TPO fails to apply any prescribed method or produce comparables; the DRP relied on jurisprudence and OECD guidance permitting scrutiny and use of other methods where rendition/benefit is doubtful.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the TPO may legitimately move away from an asserted method where the base or nature of transactions is contested (e.g., transactions not closely linked, lack of specificity, failure of rendition/benefit tests). However, the Tribunal emphasized that invoking the "Other Method" obliges the TPO to bring on record comparable uncontrolled transactions or otherwise follow the technique mandated by Rule 10AB; mere assertion or an adhoc percentage is insufficient. It also noted that s. 92C(3) preconditions for rejecting taxpayer's method must be satisfied and recorded.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The "Other Method" cannot be applied by way of arbitrary adjustment without comparability or following Rule 10AB; rejection of TNMM requires satisfaction of s. 92C(3) preconditions. Obiter - factual findings on evidence sufficiency remain case-specific.
Conclusion: While the Tribunal found that rejection of TNMM and application of "Other Method" could be justified on the facts where rendition/benefit were inadequately demonstrated, the TPO's failure to adhere to Rule 10AB's requirement to consider comparable uncontrolled transactions and to record s. 92C(3) satisfaction rendered the specific adjustment procedurally and legally defective.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Double-counting where services are included in TNMM cost base
Legal framework: Choice of Most Appropriate Method (MAM) requires a holistic assessment; once TNMM is adopted aggregating closely linked transactions, selective re-benchmarking of a single constituent transaction (cherry-picking) may be impermissible and can lead to double adjustment.
Precedent treatment: Tribunal referred to decisions holding that where TNMM applied to a segment yields arm's length margins, selective re-benchmarking of an intra-group service and separate disallowance is impermissible.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee demonstrated that aggregated TNMM produced margins significantly above comparables, contending that separate adjustment on services already forming part of the cost base results in double taxation. The Tribunal acknowledged this principle but balanced it against the TPO/DRP's position that the base itself (receipt/need/rendition of specific services) was in dispute and hence separate scrutiny could be warranted if transactions are not closely linked or belong to distinct classes.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Aggregation under TNMM precludes cherry-picking unless the transactions are not closely linked or belong to different classes; where aggregation is appropriate, separate adjustments leading to double counting are unsustainable. Obiter - determination whether transactions are "closely linked" is fact-driven.
Conclusion: The Tribunal did not grant full deletion on this ground alone but indicated that where TNMM legitimately covers the services and yields arm's length results, separate adjustment is improper; the question was remitted to AO to recompute ALP following proper procedure, allowing the assessee to produce evidence to address the double-counting contention.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Legality of TPO's adhoc 50% reduction of service charges
Legal framework: ALP determinations require application of a method under s. 92C(1) and Rule 10AB; TPO's powers under s. 92CA relate to determination of ALP, not to arbitrary disallowances akin to s. 37 assessments.
Precedent treatment: Authorities condemn adhoc percentage disallowances unsupported by comparable/analysis; TPO cannot substitute arbitrary judgment for methodical benchmarking.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed that the TPO was justified in scrutinising need/receipt/benefit but found the adoption of a flat 50% allowed value without any comparable analysis or calculation contrary to the statutory scheme. The Tribunal held that procedural and substantive requirements for ALP computation were not followed in arriving at the 50% figure.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Adhoc percentage reductions by TPO without application of a recognized ALP methodology and absence of comparables are impermissible. Obiter - acceptance that in extreme cases ALP could be determined to be nil where evidence of rendition/benefit is wholly absent (fact-specific).
Conclusion: The adhoc 50% determination cannot stand; the matter must be recomputed by AO using proper method and analysis (remand ordered for fresh computation after opportunity to file evidence).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 5: Scope to examine rendition/need/benefit and attendant evidentiary burden
Legal framework: For IGS, the assessee bears onus to demonstrate need, rendition and benefit; OECD guidelines and judicial pronouncements require FAR and benefit analyses and contemporaneous evidence to substantiate intra-group service charges.
Precedent treatment: Courts have upheld rigorous scrutiny of IGS where documentation is vague and services are generic; conversely, where adequate evidence exists, tribunals have rejected revenue adjustments.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recognized that TPO/DRP properly evaluated rendition/need/benefit tests and that absence of service-specific costing, lack of third-party comparables, and broadly worded inter-company agreements weigh against the assessee. Nevertheless, the Tribunal required that any adverse adjustment flow from methodical ALP computation and not from ad hoc conclusions; the assessee must be given further opportunity to supply service-wise details/costs/comparability.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - TPO/DRP may test rendition/benefit and deny ALP where evidence is lacking; but they must do so through the lens of prescribed ALP methodologies and record the requisite findings. Obiter - adequacy of particular documentary categories remains a factual determination.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the principle that rendition/need/benefit can be probative for ALP but directed rework through statutory mechanism and further evidentiary opportunity for assessee to meet onus.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 6: Appropriateness of remand for fresh computation
Legal framework: Tribunal has power to remit matters where lower authorities have not followed statutory procedure or where further evidentiary opportunity is warranted to decide ALP correctly.
Precedent treatment: Remand is appropriate where computation steps or methodological rigour are lacking; final deletion is only appropriate where record conclusively establishes entitlement.
Interpretation and reasoning: Given that the TPO invoked the "Other Method" yet effected an adhoc 50% allowance without Rule 10AB-style comparables or methodological computation, the Tribunal found that fresh computation in accordance with statutory requirements and after affording opportunity to the assessee was necessary in the interests of justice.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Remand is warranted where determinations rest on adhoc adjustments rather than on application of prescribed methods and established comparability analysis. Obiter - the Tribunal's direction does not pre-judge outcome of fresh computation.
Conclusion: The Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation of ALP for "other support services" after allowing the assessee to submit requisite evidence; the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes accordingly.
Addition on account of payment made to AEs for R & D and other support services - AR has submitted that the adjustment made u/s. 92CA(3) is arbitrary and unjustified as the services were already benchmarked under TNMM and no separate adjustment was warranted - HELD THAT:- We find that after considering the additional evidence and remand report, DRP has rightly upheld the rejection of TNMM applied by the assessee, and application of ‘other method’ while computing the ALP in respect of ‘other support services’. However, the adhoc disallowance by holding that evidences and benefits of other support services have not been provided by the assessee and the benchmarking adopted by fixing the ALP at 50% by the Ld. DRP is not as per the applicable provisions.
We are of the considered opinion that while the TPO rightly invoked the ‘other method’ however he should have computed the ALP as per the procedure laid down in the Act and not by making an adhoc disallowance of 50%.
We deem it appropriate to restore the issue relating to benchmarking of the ALP of ‘other support services’ to the AO for fresh computation after affording due opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and evidences. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether erstwhile promoters (personal guarantors/directors) are "persons aggrieved" entitled to file appeals under Section 62 of the IBC in relation to approval/implementation of a resolution plan.
2. Whether the Committee of Creditors (CoC) becomes functus officio on approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, or continues to have power to act (including constituting / operating a monitoring committee) until plan implementation or liquidation.
3. Whether a resolution plan clause permitting extension of the implementation period by a 66% majority of lenders is impermissibly open-ended or contrary to the IBC's time-bound scheme.
4. Whether delay in implementation of the approved resolution plan (approx. 18 months) justified setting aside the plan or attracting interest/liability on the successful resolution applicant.
5. Whether payments made to financial creditors before operational creditors (and related treatment of ex-gratia payments to OCs) contravened Regulation 38 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations as applicable at relevant times.
6. Whether instruments issued as compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs) can be treated as equity to satisfy "upfront infusion" commitments in a resolution plan.
7. Whether EBITDA (profits generated during CIRP) earned by the corporate debtor during the CIRP is distributable to creditors notwithstanding silence of the RfRP / resolution plan, and whether lenders/CoC can raise entitlement to EBITDA after plan approval.
8. Whether reclassification of a large operational creditor's admitted claim as "contingent" (with lower payout) was impermissible and vulnerable to challenge.
9. Whether payments characterized as pre-CIRP dues (to incentivize continued services) but later reclassified as CIRP-period payments can sustain appeals for additional relief.
---ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
1. Locus of erstwhile promoters to file appeals under Section 62
Legal framework: Section 62 permits appeals to the Supreme Court by any "person aggrieved" from NCLAT orders; IBC's objectives and provisions (Preamble, Sections 12, 20, 21, 30, 60) inform the scope of 'person aggrieved'.
Precedent treatment: Prior decisions have recognized that guarantors/erstwhile board members may be "persons aggrieved" where resolution plans affect their rights; authorities cited emphasize purposive interpretation aligned with IBC objectives.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that promoters who are personal guarantors and whose rights are vitally affected by a resolution plan fall within "persons aggrieved". Rather than non-suiting on locus, the Court proceeded to decide the appeals on merits while noting promoters' conduct during CIRP.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - personal guarantors/erstwhile board members can be persons aggrieved if the plan impacts their rights; Court retains discretion to decide merits notwithstanding locus contentions.
Conclusion: Promoters had maintainable locus; however, their dilatory conduct during CIRP was recorded and relevant to merits.
2. Continuity and powers of the CoC after plan approval
Legal framework: Sections 21, 24, 28, 30 of IBC; Regulation 18 and Regulation 38 of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations (including later amendments and Explanation to Reg.18(2)); statutory duty to monitor implementation.
Precedent treatment: The statutory scheme contemplates CoC involvement during CIRP and provides for monitoring mechanisms; later regulatory amendments made consideration/constitution of monitoring committee mandatory.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the functus officio argument. Explanation to Reg.18(2) and Reg.38 reflect legislative intent that CoC may continue to convene meetings and supervise implementation until plan is implemented or liquidation ordered. Allowing CoC to act post-approval avoids lacunae and ensures creditors' interests are protected while appeals or implementation issues remain pending.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - CoC continues in existence and retains power (including to constitute/operate a monitoring committee) until either implementation of the resolution plan or an order for liquidation under Section 33; CoC decisions on implementation fall within commercial wisdom.
Conclusion: CoC does not become functus officio on approval; its continuing interest justifies post-approval actions to supervise/enable implementation.
3. Legality of clause permitting CoC to extend implementation period by 66% majority
Legal framework: Section 12 (strict timelines and limited extensions), Section 30 (content of resolution plan), Regulation 38; jurisprudence disallowing renegotiation of plans post-submission (Ebix, Amtek principles).
Precedent treatment: Courts have held that once a resolution plan is approved it cannot be renegotiated or altered; but distinctions drawn where clause reserves limited extension powers to CoC for effective implementation.
Interpretation and reasoning: Clause permitting CoC-approved extension of the effective date (by 66% majority) was not a modification of the plan's substantive terms but a reservation of a limited administrative discretion to extend the implementation timeframe to address exigencies. It neither allowed renegotiation nor withdrawal of the plan.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a clause permitting limited, creditor-approved extension of implementation does not, by itself, render a plan indeterminate or unlawful; such administrative extensions are permissible provided they do not alter substantive commitments of the plan.
Conclusion: Clause was valid; differentiation made from impermissible renegotiation decisions (Amtek) where substantive terms were sought to be altered.
4. Delay in implementation - whether it vitiates the plan
Legal framework: Section 12 time limits; consequences of prolonged non-implementation in precedent (Murari Lal Jalan); equitable considerations where external impediments intervene.
Precedent treatment: Delays attributable to the successful resolution applicant have led to plan rejection; but delays caused by external impediments or stays require contextual assessment.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court traced facts showing multiple external impediments (criminal/FIR/ED provisional attachment, stays by NCLAT, pendency of challenges, need for clarity on Section 32A, interlocutory orders from this Court) impeded implementation. CoC and SRA acted jointly to secure handover of unencumbered assets; CoC passed a resolution to extend the effective date and the plan was implemented thereafter. Hence delay was not attributable to SRA alone nor was it inordinate in the sense warranting rejection.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - implementation delay does not automatically vitiate an approved plan where delay arises from legitimate, external impediments and creditors (CoC) exercise commercial judgment to permit extension and implementation.
Conclusion: Delay did not justify setting aside the plan or imposing consequences on SRA where credible external causes existed and CoC approved extension.
5. Priority of payments to Operational Creditors (OCs) vs Financial Creditors (FCs)
Legal framework: Regulation 38(1)(b) (original and subsequent amendments dated October and November 2018/2019) prescribing priority/payments to OCs; Section 30(2)(b) and later amendments; non-retrospective application of subsequent regulatory changes.
Precedent treatment: Statutory text and Board regulations govern mandatory contents; retrospective application requires explicit intent.
Interpretation and reasoning: At the time the resolution plan (with addendum) was approved by NCLT (5 Sept 2019), the earlier formulation governed and the plan stated liquidation value to OCs was nil but an ex-gratia payment was proposed. Subsequent Regulation amendment (27 Nov 2019) post-dates NCLT approval and cannot be applied retrospectively. The ex-gratia payments to OCs were not "amounts due" under the plan and therefore did not contravene the law as it stood on approval date.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - later regulatory amendments cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate an approved plan; ex-gratia payments not forming part of amounts due under an approved plan do not automatically violate Regulation 38 as it then stood.
Conclusion: No contravention established on payments ordering; objection by promoters on this ground rejected.
6. Treating CCDs as equity to satisfy upfront infusion commitments
Legal framework: Principles distinguishing CCDs from debt under company law and prior precedent treating compulsorily convertible instruments as equity for relevant purposes.
Precedent treatment: Earlier authoritative rulings hold CCDs to be akin to equity where conversion is compulsory and no repayment obligation exists.
Interpretation and reasoning: The CCDs issued (five-year term with mandatory conversion) met the tests in precedent and CoC recorded approval/acceptance of CCD issuance as satisfying upfront infusion. Given settled jurisprudence and CoC's commercial wisdom, CCDs qualify as equity infusion for resolution plan compliance.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - compulsorily convertible debentures, mandatorily convertible into equity, are to be treated as equity instruments for purposes of fulfilling an upfront equity infusion commitment in a resolution plan.
Conclusion: CCDs satisfied the upfront infusion obligation; appellants' challenge rejected.
7. Entitlement and distribution of EBITDA generated during CIRP
Legal framework: Section 25 (RfRP), Section 30/31 (resolution plan content/finality), relevant precedents on distribution of profits/EBITDA, and doctrine that claims outside approved plan stand frozen.
Precedent treatment: Supreme Court authority (Essar) held that a successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with "undecided" claims post-approval and that distribution of profits during CIRP is governed by the RfRP/process document; NCLAT decisions to the contrary were set aside.
Interpretation and reasoning: The RfRP and resolution plan were silent on EBITDA distribution; CoC earlier (post-NCLAT) resolved that EBITDA remain with the company in line with the controlling Supreme Court precedent. The CoC and parties had taken a consistent stand before courts; later attempts by CoC/promoters to reopen entitlement to EBITDA after plan approval/review petitions were rejected as inconsistent and undermining the finality and commercial predictability of the resolution process. Reopening such claims would contravene the "frozen claims" doctrine and permit hydra-head claims.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - EBITDA distribution cannot be compelled where RfRP/resolution plan is silent and the successful resolution applicant relied on the process documents; claims not part of RfRP/resolution plan stand frozen post-approval and cannot be reopened except as provided by statute.
Conclusion: No entitlement of lenders/promoters to EBITDA where process documents are silent; attempts to revive such claims at this stage dismissed.
8. Classification of a creditor's admitted claim as "contingent" (re Jaldhi)
Legal framework: Admission of claims by resolution professional, CoC's power to accept/classify and sanction plan under commercial wisdom principles; enforcement of foreign awards under Arbitration Act requires domestic enforceability.
Precedent treatment: CoC's commercial decisions on classification/valuation of claims are protected from judicial interference (K. Sashidhar and successors).
Interpretation and reasoning: The creditor had adopted inconsistent positions before forums (earlier treating claim as contingent and later seeking crystallization). Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India requires domestic enforcement proceedings; the creditor had withdrawn enforcement proceedings before domestic court, undermining crystallization argument. CoC's decision to treat the claim as contingent formed part of its commercial assessment and was approved by CoC; such classification is non-justiciable absent statutory grounds under Section 61.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - reclassification/valuation of claims by CoC (including treatment of contingent vs crystallized) falls within CoC's commercial domain and is not to be upset unless statutory grounds for interference exist.
Conclusion: Classification as contingent was sustainable; appeal on this ground dismissed.
9. Pre-CIRP dues alleged to have been paid as incentive to continue services (Medi/Darcl)
Legal framework: RP's duty to manage operations (Sections 14, 20, 23, 25), RP's accounting/approval obligations, and requirement that payments must conform to resolution plan and CoC approvals.
Precedent treatment: Payments of pre-CIRP dues require express CoC approval or plan provision; inadvertent payments corrected/adjusted have limited remedial scope.
Interpretation and reasoning: Record showed payments were made and subsequently treated as an accountancy mistake; RP rectified by adjusting payments against CIRP-period dues and there was no CoC approval for pre-CIRP payments nor plan provision. NCLT/NCLAT findings on same were concurrent and not susceptible to interference.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - isolated/erroneous pre-CIRP payments not approved by CoC and not incorporated in resolution plan do not give rise to new legal questions warranting reversal.
Conclusion: Appeals regarding pre-CIRP payment recharacterization failed; no interference warranted.
---OVERALL CONCLUSION
The Court upheld the finality and commercial sanctity of the approved resolution plan subject to statutory limits: promoters had locus but their challenges failed on merits; CoC retains supervisory role post-approval until implementation/liquidation; limited creditor-approved extensions of implementation are permissible; delays attributable to external impediments did not vitiate the plan; CCDs qualifying as compulsorily convertible instruments constitute equity for infusion commitments; EBITDA claims could not be reopened where RfRP/resolution plan are silent; creditor classification and RP accounting adjustments fell within commercial/administrative domain and did not warrant setting aside the plan. The impugned appellate order was therefore upheld and the appeals dismissed.
Locus of the erstwhile promoters of the Corporate Debtor - Conduct of Erstwhile Promoters - Existence of the CoC after approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority - Delay in implementation of the Resolution Plan - Upfront infusion of funds - Distribution of EBITDA - Contingent claim of Jaldhi - Pre-CIRP dues of Medi and Darcl.
Locus standi of the erstwhile promoters - HELD THAT:- It can be seen that the IBC was brought in to consolidate the laws related to the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons in a time – bound manner which would result in the promotion of entrepreneurship and the balancing of the interests of all shareholders. The main purpose of the enactment therefore is to ensure that the company undergoing insolvency proceedings is revived or liquidated expeditiously within a stipulated timeframe.
A bare perusal of Section 12 of the IBC reveals that precise timelines have been provided for all the different steps that have to be taken during the CIRP of a company. The proviso to Section 12 of the IBC states that any extension to the fixed timelines may not be granted more than once. This further shows that the IBC does not allow any undue delays in the completion of the CIRP of a company - It is thus clear that the IBC proposes to carry out the Resolution Process of a Company expeditiously in a time – bound fashion.
Since the Resolution Plan also affects the rights of the guarantors, it is found that the SRA – JSW and the CoC are not right in submitting that the appeals at the instance of the appellants would not be maintainable. In any case, rather than nonsuiting the appellants on the ground of locus, it is proposed to decide the appeals on merits after considering the submissions made on behalf of all the parties. However, while doing so, it will also be apposite to consider the conduct of the erstwhile promoters during the CIRP.
Conduct of Erstwhile Promoters - HELD THAT:- There is a delay in the pronouncement of the approval order by the NCLT. A specific observation has been made by the NCLT that the erstwhile promoters were making efforts to cause delays which indicated how desperate and frustrated they were. The NCLT also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the Appellants – erstwhile promoters as it concluded that the application seeking copies of the Resolution Plan filed by them was frivolous - It can thus clearly be seen that the entire attempt of the appellants has been to thwart the CIRP and to not permit the same to be taken to a logical end.
Existence of the CoC after approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- As per Section 20 of the IBC, the IRP is required to make every endeavour to protect and preserve the value of the property of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern. It will further be relevant to note that, under Section 21 of the IBC, the IRP, after collation of all claims received against the Corporate Debtor and determination of the financial position of the Corporate Debtor, is required to constitute a CoC. Under Section 21 of the IBC, the CoC must be comprised of all FCs of the Corporate Debtor. However, proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the IBC provides that if a financial creditor or the authorised representative of the financial creditor referred to in sub-section (6) or sub-section (6-A) or sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the IBC is a related party of the corporate debtor, he shall not have any right of representation, participation or voting in a meeting of the CoC. No doubt that the second proviso thereof excludes certain related parties of a corporate debtor from the applicability of the first proviso. However, the same would not be relevant for the purpose of the present matter.
Section 24 of the IBC deals with the meeting of the creditors. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the IBC, which begins with a non-obstante clause, requires that the RP, during the CIRP, shall not take any of the actions therein without the prior approval of the CoC. Such decisions are required to be taken by the CoC after putting the matters enumerated in sub-section (1) thereof to vote. Under subsection (4) of Section 30 of the IBC, the CoC considers approval of resolution plan by a vote of not less than 66% of voting share of the financial creditors.
Explanation to clause 2 of Regulation 18 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations clarifies the position. It empowers the CoC to hold meetings till either the Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC or an order for liquidation is passed under Section 33 of the IBC. It is empowered to decide all the matters except the matters which do not affect the Resolution Plan submitted before the Adjudicating Authority - in view of Explanation to clause 2 of Regulation 18 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, the CoC continues to exist till the Resolution Plan is implemented or an order of liquidation is passed under Section 33 of the IBC. It will not be out of place to mention that the cloud of uncertainty exists till a finality is given by this Court in the proceedings under Section 62 of the IBC.
The clause (3) of the Resolution Plan neither provided modification nor withdrawal from the Resolution Plan. The said cannot therefore be stated to be an open ended or indeterminate plan solely at the discretion of the resolution applicant. Under the said clause, there is neither a provision for withdrawal nor modification of the Resolution Plan nor are there any negotiations envisaged under the said clause of the Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA – JSW in the present matter.
Delay in implementation of the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- There have been several impediments in the implementation of the Resolution Plan by the SRA – JSW. After the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 15th October 2018 and an application was filed by RP for approval of Resolution Plan on 14th February 2019. Thereafter, the CBI filed an FIR on 5th April 2019 against the Corporate Debtor – BPSL and its erstwhile management for large scale siphoning and diversion of funds. Immediately thereafter, the SRA - JSW filed an additional affidavit before the NCLT on 15th April 2019 seeking protection from acts/omissions of the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor for alleged breach under the applicable laws including under IPC, PC Act and PMLA. Based on the CBI’s FIR, the ED registered an ECIR bearing DLZO-1/02/2019 against the Corporate Debtor – BPSL and its erstwhile management.
In the present case, even after the IBC was amended and Section 32A of the IBC was brought into the statute, the ED was proceeding further with its prosecution of the Corporate Debtor. On account of the pendency of such proceedings, the CoC was not in a position to hand over the unencumbered assets as required under the Resolution Plan.
Thus, with regard to the CCDs being equivalent to equity instruments and the specific stand of the CoC, it is not found that there is any merit in the contention of the appellants in this regard and the same is liable to be rejected.
Distribution of EBITDA - entitlement of the lenders to EBITDA - HELD THAT:- There is nothing produced by the appellants to show any agreement with the RP after the CIRP commenced. Even though the RP admits that payments towards pre – CIRP dues were in fact made, it is also candidly accepted by the RP that the same was a mistake on the part of an accounting clerk. Upon discovering this mistake, the RP had quickly taken steps to mitigate the same and the payments were adjusted towards the services rendered by the Appellants during the CIRP period.
There is nothing on record that shows that the CoC had approved such pre – CIRP payments and such payments to the appellants find no mention anywhere in the Resolution Plan. This Court has, time and again, held through a catena of judgments that any and all payments made to creditors relating to the pre – CIRP dues must be done only in accordance with the Resolution Plan and with the express agreement of the CoC. Therefore, it is not found that any new question of law being raised through the present appeals and thus, they are liable to be dismissed.
There are no merit in the appeals. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) can validly exercise powers and pass orders as a single-member Bench notwithstanding Section 6(2) prescribing a Chairperson and two other Members.
2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority violated procedural fairness under Section 8(2) of PMLA by failing to afford adequate opportunity/time to the appellants to present their defence before confirming a provisional attachment under Section 5.
3. Whether the provisional attachment of multiple bank accounts is vitiated where only some accounts received identified transfers from an alleged tainted source and other accounts had no direct inward transfers from that source.
4. Whether the Directorate/authorized investigating agency has power under the PMLA to register an ECIR and to investigate and refer matters under the Act.
5. Admissibility and evidentiary weight of statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA where appellants allege coercion.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Validity of single-member Bench of Adjudicating Authority
Legal framework: Section 6(2) provides that the Adjudicating Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and two other members; Section 6(5)(b) empowers the Chairperson to constitute Benches of one or two members; Section 6(6) and 6(7) permit transfer and reconstitution of matters among Benches; Section 6(10) permits proceedings to continue despite vacancy.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on authorities holding that subsectional provisions must be read conjunctively and that powers under Section 6 can be exercised by a Bench comprising a single member, with citation to precedents upholding single-member adjudication and rejecting a construction that renders Section 6(5) and 6(7) nugatory.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court read Section 6 as a scheme providing for a full Authority (Chairperson plus two members) while expressly empowering the Chairperson to constitute Benches of one or two members. The legislative intent is construed as allowing flexibility; reading Section 6(2) in isolation to require a three-member bench in all cases would render other subsections meaningless. The statutory scheme contemplates diversity of fields among Members but does not convert that composition into a jurisdictional requirement that every order must be passed by a three-member Bench.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the composition provisions in Section 6 permit single-member Benches to validly exercise powers under the Act; obiter - observations on legislative intent regarding diversity of fields, while supportive, are ancillary.
Conclusions: The challenge to the impugned order on the ground that it was passed by a single Member of the Adjudicating Authority is rejected; a single-member Bench was competent to pass the order under the statutory scheme.
Issue 2: Adequacy of opportunity under Section 8(2) and timing vis-à-vis Section 5(1) - confirmation of provisional attachment
Legal framework: Section 8(1) prescribes issuance of notice by the Adjudicating Authority; Section 8(2) requires opportunity to the person concerned to make a representation; Section 5(1) authorizes provisional attachment for up to 180 days and imposes a time-bound duty to confirm or otherwise the PAO within that period.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the impugned authority's findings and prior decisions affirming that where opportunity was granted but not availed, the Authority may proceed; also invoked statutory mandate to act within 180 days under Section 5(1).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the Adjudicating Authority's factual recording that appellants were granted two opportunities but did not present their case or file written submissions on two occasions, and further time was refused. The statutory interplay requires the AA to dispose of the original complaint within 180 days of the PAO; therefore, indefinite extension is not permissible merely because the Act sets a minimum period for notice. The appellants cannot benefit from their default in failing to avail opportunities granted.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an Authority furnishes opportunities in compliance with Section 8(2) and the party fails to avail them, the Authority may refuse further time and proceed to meet the time-bound obligation under Section 5(1); obiter - commentary on limits of "reasonable time" beyond statutory minima.
Conclusions: No violation of Section 8(2); confirmation of the PAO was procedurally valid given the recorded defaults and the statutory 180-day constraint under Section 5(1).
Issue 3: Validity of attachment of multiple accounts where only some show direct transfers from alleged tainted source; burden under Section 24
Legal framework: PMLA presumes certain facts in relation to proceeds of crime and casts burden under Section 24 on persons to rebut presumption that property is proceeds of crime; attachment under Section 5 is predicated on reason to believe based on material in possession.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the statutory burden-shifting in Section 24 and relied on investigative material (bank statements, identified cheque numbers, confessional or explanatory statements recorded under Section 50) as supporting attachments.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed bank records of transfers from the alleged tainted source to specific accounts (identifying dates, amounts, cheque numbers) and found corroboration in statements recorded from relevant persons admitting receipt and purpose of transfers. The appellants' contention that some accounts were unattached to the alleged transfers was considered but rejected because (a) the specific transfers to certain accounts were established, (b) appellant statements corroborated the transfers and their purpose (withdrawal and handover to an official), and (c) appellants failed to discharge the evidentiary burden under Section 24 to show that the funds were not proceeds of crime or to explain legitimate source (no documentary evidence of distillation work or other legitimate receipt was furnished). The Authority's findings that inspections revealed no material supplied and no completion of works supported the inference of siphoning of funds.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where specific transfers from an alleged tainted source to accounts are evidenced and the person fails to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 with cogent documentary proof, attachment of the accounts is sustainable; obiter - remarks on insufficiency of bald assertions (e.g., payments for 'distillation work') absent documentary proof.
Conclusions: Attachment of the accounts receiving identified transfers is upheld; attachments of associated accounts are not vitiated by the absence of direct transfers to each account where the material and statements support linkage and appellants failed to discharge the burden under Section 24.
Issue 4: Power of Directorate/authorized agency to register ECIR and investigate under PMLA
Legal framework: Section 49(1-3) empowers Central Government to appoint authorities for the Act; notification under Section 49 appoints the Director of Enforcement and delegates powers to exercise exclusive powers conferred under various sections including Section 5, 8, 50, etc.; Section 2(na) defines "investigation" under the Act.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the statutory notification and the definition of investigation to validate the Directorate's authority to register ECIR and conduct proceedings.
Interpretation and reasoning: The notification exercising powers under Section 49 demonstrates that the Directorate has been authorized to exercise powers of investigation and other functions under the Act. The definitional provision encompasses proceedings conducted by the Director or authorized authority for collection of evidence; accordingly, registration and reference to ECIR is an established practice to denote the investigative proceedings under the Act.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Directorate/authorized agency is empowered under PMLA and notification to investigate offences and register ECIRs as part of statutory investigative proceedings; obiter - none material.
Conclusions: The challenge that the Directorate lacks power to register ECIR or investigate under PMLA is rejected; the notification and statutory scheme authorize such action.
Issue 5: Admissibility and weight of statements recorded under Section 50 alleged to be under coercion
Legal framework: Section 50 provides for recording of statements by persons during investigation under PMLA; general evidentiary principles require allegations of coercion to be substantiated.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal required substantiation for coercion allegations and treated unexplained or belated claims skeptically.
Interpretation and reasoning: The allegation of coercion was raised in an additional affidavit filed substantially later than the dates of recording of statements; no contemporaneous substantiation or material was produced to demonstrate coercion. In absence of corroborative material or prompt challenge, the statements recorded under Section 50 retain evidentiary value and were relied upon by the Authority for corroboration with bank records and other material.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - bald or belated allegations of coercion do not automatically render Section 50 statements inadmissible; such claims must be substantiated with material evidence to negate their probative value; obiter - procedural admonition to avoid unsubstantiated late challenges.
Conclusions: The challenge to the admissibility of Section 50 statements on grounds of coercion is rejected for want of substantiation; the statements are accorded evidentiary weight in corroboration with documentary bank evidence.
Composition of the Adjudicating Authority - bench constituted by the Chairperson - provisional attachment under Section 5 of PMLA - time-bound disposal and 180-day limit - opportunity to present defence under Section 8 of PMLA - burden of proof under Section 24 of PMLA - admissibility of statements under Section 50 of PMLA - investigation and ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 49 and notification
Composition of the Adjudicating Authority - bench constituted by the Chairperson - Validity of the Impugned Order passed by a single-member Adjudicating Authority. - HELD THAT: - The statutory scheme of Section 6 read as a whole contemplates a Chairperson and two Members but also expressly empowers the Chairperson to constitute Benches of one or two Members, to transfer Members between Benches and to transfer matters when necessary. Reading the subsections conjointly, a single Member Bench constituted by the Chairperson is a valid coram to exercise the Adjudicating Authority's powers. Precedents and earlier decisions of this Tribunal and High Courts support that a single Member can pass orders and that such an interpretation avoids rendering other subsections nugatory. The challenge to the Impugned Order on the ground of incomplete coram accordingly fails. [Paras 9, 10, 11]
The order passed by the single-member Adjudicating Authority is valid and the coram objection is rejected.
Provisional attachment under Section 5 of PMLA - time-bound disposal and 180-day limit - opportunity to present defence under Section 8 of PMLA - Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in confirming the provisional attachment without giving adequate time or in undue haste, and whether the AA complied with statutory time limits. - HELD THAT: - Section 5 requires provisional attachment to be confirmed or otherwise within 180 days. The record shows the PAO was issued on 24.12.2014 and the Impugned Order was passed on 28.05.2015, within the statutory period. The Adjudicating Authority recorded that the appellants were granted two opportunities to present their defence but did not avail themselves and did not file written submissions on two occasions; consequently further time was refused. The appellants cannot benefit from their own default. Thus the AA complied with Sections 5 and 8 and acted within the statutory timeframe in confirming the PAO. [Paras 6, 12]
No illegality in the AA's disposal within the 180-day period; opportunities were afforded and the refusal of further time was justified by appellants' noncompliance.
Burden of proof under Section 24 of PMLA - admissibility of statements under Section 50 of PMLA - Whether the attachments were properly confirmed on the basis of bank transfers, statements and the appellants' failure to rebut the presumption under Section 24. - HELD THAT: - The record contains banktransaction analysis showing large transfers from M/s Eureka Traders Bureau to the appellants' accounts on specific dates and cheque numbers. Statements of the appellants and a relative corroborated the purpose of transfers and withdrawals for payment to an SJDA official. Inspections and enquiries in the scheduled offences indicated nonsupply of material and noncompletion of work. The appellants did not produce documentary or other evidence to support their claim of legitimate receipts (for example, distillation work) and thus failed to discharge the statutory burden under Section 24 to rebut the presumption that the funds were proceeds of crime. The contention that statements recorded under Section 50 were coerced was made without substantiation and was raised late. [Paras 5, 8, 14]
The evidence sufficiently corroborates money flows and purpose; appellants failed to rebut the presumption under Section 24 and the confirmation of attachment stands.
Investigation and ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 49 and notification - Whether the Enforcement Directorate had power to register ECIR and investigate the offence under PMLA. - HELD THAT: - Section 49 empowers the Central Government to appoint authorities and to authorize the Director or other officers to exercise powers under the Act. The published notification (G.S.R. 441(E) dated 01.07.2005) specifically appoints the Director of Enforcement and authorizes the Directorate to exercise exclusive powers under various sections including those relevant to investigation and attachment. The definition of 'investigation' in the Act encompasses proceedings conducted by the Director or authorized authority, which explains the use of ECIR numbers for cases investigated by the Directorate. Therefore, the Directorate was duly empowered to register ECIR and investigate. [Paras 13]
The Directorate of Enforcement was authorised to register ECIR and to investigate under the PMLA; the challenge on this ground is rejected.
Final Conclusion: All grounds advanced in the appeals were considered and rejected: the coram of a singlemember Adjudicating Authority is valid; the AA complied with time limits and afforded opportunities which appellants did not avail; the evidence of bank transfers and admissions, together with appellants' failure to rebut the Section 24 presumption, warranted confirmation of the provisional attachment; and the Enforcement Directorate was duly authorised to register ECIR and investigate. The appeals are dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether CENVAT credit of input services claimed for Financial Year 2016-17 can be adjusted against a reassessed Service Tax demand where the claim was made after one year from the date of issue of the CENVAT documents, in light of the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation (five years) for issuing a show cause notice can be invoked by the Revenue without particularized averments and evidence demonstrating fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade tax.
3. Whether penalty under the statutory provisions (Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994) can be sustained where the extended period is not properly invoked and where CENVAT credit claim was accepted by the adjudicating authority after examination of records.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of the one-year limitation in the third proviso to Rule 4(1) for CENVAT credit when tax liability is reassessed
Legal framework: Third proviso to Rule 4(1), CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: "Provided also that the manufacturer or provider of output service shall not take CENVAT credit after one year of the date of issue of any of the documents specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9." Rule 9 prescribes documents and conditions for availing credit; adjustment/set-off mechanisms apply when credit is correctly evidenced and permissible.
Precedent treatment: The adjudicating authority allowed adjustment after examining documents and relied on Tribunal precedents permitting credit where Rule 9 conditions are satisfied; the appellate authority invoked the third proviso to deny credit. The Court/Tribunal reviewed the factual application of Rule 9 and the proviso rather than overruling precedent.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the proviso operates to automatically bar credit where the claim is beyond one year, even when the tax liability for the relevant period is being reassessed. The adjudicating authority had satisfied itself that the conditions of Rule 9 were met and adjusted CENVAT credit against the reassessed demand. The Tribunal reasoned that where taxable value and tax payable for a tax period are reassessed, denying the substantive benefit of legitimately supported credit by mechanical application of the one-year bar would be unjustified. Given that the adjudicating authority allowed the credit on production of required documents and that the net tax was paid, denial solely on timing grounds was not warranted in the reassessment context before the Tribunal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where reassessment establishes tax liability for a period and the assessee produces documents satisfying Rule 9, the one-year bar in the third proviso cannot be invoked mechanistically to deny adjustment of legitimately supported CENVAT credit for that reassessed period. Obiter - Observations on policy or broader reform of limitation rules beyond the facts were not necessary.
Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.3,73,933/- under the third proviso to Rule 4(1) was not justified; the adjudicating authority's allowance of that credit is upheld and the denial is set aside.
Issue 2 - Validity of invoking the extended period of limitation for issuance of SCN
Legal framework: Limitation rules permit issuance of a show cause notice within two years of the relevant date except where duty/tax is not paid or short paid by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade tax; in such cases an extended period of five years applies. Revenue bears the onus to demonstrate these ingredients in the SCN with supporting evidence.
Precedent treatment: Reliance was placed on Circular guidance interpreting Supreme Court authority that enjoins strict compliance: extended limitation applies only when the SCN specifically discloses the active ingredients and evidence of intent to evade duty/tax.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applied the standard that the element of deliberate wrongdoing (active element of intent) must be pleaded and supported in the SCN. On the record, the SCN invoked the extended period but did not set out the requisite factual matrix or evidence demonstrating willful mis-statement, suppression, collusion or intent to evade payment of tax. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's burden to bring out such ingredients in the notice itself; absent such material, invocation of the extended period is improper.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Invocation of the extended five-year limitation period is impermissible unless the SCN specifically alleges and supports the ingredients (fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression or contravention with intent to evade) with evidentiary particulars; failure to do so renders the extended period invocation invalid. Obiter - None beyond application to facts.
Conclusion: No ingredients of willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or collusion with intent to evade tax were established in the SCN; therefore the extended period of limitation could not be properly invoked.
Issue 3 - Validity of penalty under Section 78 where extended period is not properly invoked and credit was accepted by adjudicating authority
Legal framework: Section 78 empowers imposition of penalty in specified cases; however, penalty consequences are linked to correct invocation of substantive provisions (including limitation) and to the factual finding of culpability such as intent or suppression.
Precedent treatment: Penalty sustenance requires a finding of statutory ingredients that justify penal consequences; where the foundational findings (e.g., extended period, deliberate suppression) are absent, penalty cannot stand.
Interpretation and reasoning: Because the Tribunal found that the extended period was not properly invoked (Issue 2) and that the adjudicating authority had legitimately allowed CENVAT credit after examining Rule 9 compliance (Issue 1), there was no basis to infer the requisite culpability for imposing penalty under Section 78. The Tribunal held that penalty premised on absence of proper limitation invocation and on denial of credit that had been correctly examined is not sustainable.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalty under the statute cannot be sustained where the prosecution of the tax demand by extended limitation is invalid and where the record otherwise does not demonstrate willful mis-statement, suppression or collusion. Obiter - Remedial observations about departmental review procedures were incidental.
Conclusion: Penalty imposed under Section 78 is set aside in the absence of established ingredients justifying extended limitation and penal consequences.
Overall Conclusion and Relief
The Tribunal allowed the appeal: denial of CENVAT credit of Rs.3,73,933/- was set aside; no ingredients were found to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation; penalty under Section 78 was set aside; consequential relief was granted in accordance with law.
Adjustment of CENVAT credit claimed against a reassessed service tax demand as per third proviso to Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 - all necessary documents submitted by the Appellant, as prescribed u/r 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - suppression of facts - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Adjudicating Authority after satisfying himself with regard to the necessary documents submitted by the Appellant, as prescribed under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, allowed adjustment of CENVAT credit of Rs.3,73,933/- against total demand of Rs. 16,63,911/-. The net Service Tax demand of Rs. 12,89,978/-, after paying Rs.3,73,933/- from CENVAT credit account, was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant had already paid the net tax demand of Rs. 12,89,978/- vide challan No. 230554731 dated 04.05.2023 (date of payment 08.05.2023 on AIO). Interest of Rs.13.23.730/- alongwith penalty of Rs.3.25,495/-, total Rs. 16,49,225/- was also deposited on 27.06.2023 to conclude the proceedings. Accordingly, the denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.3,73,933/- is not justified and is accordingly, set aside.
Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The extended period can be invoked only when there are ingredients necessary to justify the demand for the extended period in a case leading to short payment or non-payment of tax. The onus of establishing that these ingredients are present in a given case is on revenue and these ingredients need to be clearly brought out in the Show Cause Notice alongwith evidence thereof. The active element of intent to evade duty by action or inaction needs to be present for invoking extended period.
There are no ingredients of willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or collusion etc. with intent to evade payment of tax and as such penalty imposed under Section 78 is set aside. The denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.3,73,933/- is set aside.
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the transfer of development rights under a collaboration/development agreement amounts to a "service" taxable as "sale of development rights" under the Finance Act, 1994 (Section 65B(44)), or whether such transfer constitutes immovable property and thus falls outside the definition of "service".
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Whether transfer of development rights is taxable service or immovable property excluded from service tax.
Legal framework: The question is governed by the definition of "service" and the exclusion in Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 as read with the concept of "immovable property" under Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The statutory test focuses on whether the transaction transfers title/benefit of immovable property (or is in substance a transfer of immovable property) which is excluded from "service".
Precedent Treatment: The Court followed and applied earlier authorities holding transferable development rights (TDR) or transfer of development rights to be a benefit arising out of land and therefore immovable property. Specific prior decisions relied upon include: decisions holding that benefits arising from land are immovable property; Tribunal decisions characterizing transfer of development rights as resulting in transfer of undivided interest/rights in land; and High Court decisions treating TDR as immovable property. No precedent was overruled; earlier decisions were followed.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the collaboration agreement's terms and the legal character of the transferred rights. It reasoned that when a landowner transfers development rights to a developer, the developer obtains not only the right to develop but also an obligation/expectation that undivided interest in the land will be transferred to purchasers upon execution of sale/conveyance deeds. The initial consideration paid by the developer compensates the landowner for the development rights such that, in effect, ownership or beneficial interest in land is transferred (or will be transferred) to the ultimate vendees. This substance-over-form approach treats the transfer of development rights as transfer of "benefits arising from land", which falls within the statutory definition of immovable property under Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act. The Tribunal reasoned that once the transaction is properly characterized as transfer of immovable property/benefit arising from land, it is excluded from the ambit of "service" under Section 65B(44)(a)(i) and therefore not chargeable to service tax.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that transfer of development rights which effectively transfers undivided interest/benefit arising from land constitutes immovable property and is excluded from service tax is ratio decidendi of the decision. Referential discussion of prior case facts and authorities served as supporting precedent and application of the legal test (ratio). Observations on peripheral consequences of such characterization (e.g., transfer mechanics, stamp registration) are incidental/obiter to the extent they are illustrative but not essential to the primary legal rule.
Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the collaboration agreement's transfer of development rights amounted in substance to transfer of immovable property/benefit arising out of land and therefore did not constitute a taxable "service" under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the demand of service tax, interest and penalties based on a contrary characterization was set aside.
Issue 2 (implicit and addressed): Whether further contentions require consideration once the transfer is held to be immovable property.
Legal framework: If a transaction falls within the exclusion for immovable property, other grounds for taxation under the service tax code need not be addressed where they flow from an initial erroneous classification.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed prior reasoning that acceptance of the immovable-property characterization renders further contentions on taxable service redundant and unnecessary to decide.
Interpretation and reasoning: Having found that the transfer was of immovable property/benefits arising from land, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to adjudicate additional contentions raised by the appellant (e.g., alternative factual or legal submissions on service classification, valuation, or nexus) because the exclusion resolves the core question of liability.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The procedural decision to decline examination of remaining contentions is incidental to the principal holding and therefore obiter in relation to any distinct legal issues not necessary for the core determination.
Conclusion: No further adjudication of secondary contentions was required once the transfer was held to be excluded from "service"; the adjudicating authority's demand was quashed accordingly.
Cross-reference
The Court's reasoning explicitly relies on and follows earlier authorities interpreting Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act and the exclusion in Section 65B(44); see the Tribunal's application of the principle that "benefits arising from land" (including transferable development rights) are to be treated as immovable property, which directly supports both Issue 1's ratio and the procedural conclusion in Issue 2.
Levy of service tax - income under the head ‘sale of development rights’, which falls within the ambit of Section 65(B)(44) - transfer of development rights involve a transfer of title in immovable property as required under Section 65(B)(44)(a)(i) or not - HELD THAT:- The Bombay High Court in Chheda Housing Development Corporation versus Bibijan Shaikh Farid [2007 (2) TMI 664 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], referred to the definition of ‘immovable property’ under Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also the decisions on it, held that the benefit arising from the land is immovable property and TDR being a benefit arising from the land, the same would be held to be immovable property.
Thereafter, referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Bahadur & Ors. versus Sikandar & Ors. [1905 (1) TMI 1 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Bombay High Court in Sadoday Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Others [2011 (6) TMI 936 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Chheda Housing Development Corporation, where transferable development right has been held to be immovable property, the Chandigarh Bench observed that the transfer of development rights in the case in hand is termed as ‘immovable property’ and no service tax is payable as per the exclusion clause in terms of Section 65(B)(44)(a)(i) of the Act.
It is found from the terms and conditions of the collaboration agreement that the ultimate aim for the transfer of development right was the transfer of land which in clear terms is out of the purview of the service tax. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the other contentions raised by the appellant.
The impugned order needs to be set aside and is hereby quashed - appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the appellant's provision of wildlife/ecotourism packages, comprising accommodation, food and ancillary activities (safari, bird watching, angling, etc.), constitutes "Tour Operator Service" under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether receipts characterized as rents, franchise fees or shares of revenue (Ayurvedic treatment, beach resort receipts, franchise income) fall within "Renting of Immovable Property" service and are liable to service tax.
3. Whether activities undertaken under an agreement with a government department for developing eco-tourism and providing short-duration training fall within "Commercial Training and Coaching" service.
4. Whether the adjudicating authority's invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties is sustainable in light of the reclassification/acceptance by department and the nature of services actually rendered.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Classification as Tour Operator Service
Legal framework: Tour Operator Service is defined under Section 65(115) as services involving planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours and engaging in operating tours in tourist vehicles or contract carriages; key emphasis on arranging transport and operating tours.
Precedent treatment: Reliance placed on earlier tribunal decisions (Kerala Backwaters; Air India; Jet Airways; Dy. Conservator of Forest v. CCE, Jaipur; GEM Star Enterprises) and Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST clarifying that tour operator entry applies where tour includes transportation and subsequently other activities.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the nature of services - primary provision of accommodation and ancillary onsite activities without providing transport or organizing travel plans. The tribunal found that mere provision of accommodation across multiple locations, taking bookings for own resorts, offering onsite facilities (safari rides not in tourist-permitted vehicles), or advertising packages does not equate to planning/scheduling/organizing tours or operating tours by transport. Where customers arrange their own travel and the appellant engages tour operators (third parties) to promote locations, the appellant's role is confined to accommodation operations. The tribunal applied the cited precedents to conclude that absence of transport/organizing function places the service outside Tour Operator Service.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - classification hinges on presence of organizing/planning/transport component; absent such elements, service is accommodation, not tour operator. Reliance on prior tribunal holdings is treated as binding in the facts of this matter. Observations about safari vehicles lacking tourist permits reinforce the ratio but are ancillary factual findings.
Conclusion: Demand under Tour Operator Service set aside; services more appropriately classifiable as short-term accommodation services (clause 65(105)(zzzzw)), with taxpayer having registered/paid under that category from 01.05.2011.
Issue 2 - Renting of Immovable Property vs Accommodation Service
Legal framework: Definition of Renting of Immovable Property service excludes buildings used for hotels and buildings used for the purpose of accommodation including hotels, hostels, boarding houses, holiday accommodation, tents, camping facilities.
Precedent treatment: Tribunal decisions and statutory exclusion relied upon to distinguish rental receipts from taxable renting of immovable property where the income arises from hotel/accommodation operations.
Interpretation and reasoning: Receipts characterized in accounts as Ayurvedic receipts, beach resort receipts and franchise fees were examined. The tribunal held that amounts arising from operation of hotels/resorts (including shared revenue from Ayurvedic treatments where revenue is shared per agreement) do not constitute renting of immovable property because the exclusion explicitly covers accommodation services. Franchise fee characterized by the appellant was held not to be renting of immovable property; Ayurvedic income represented operating revenue sharing rather than rent.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - income from accommodation/hotel operations and revenue-sharing for services provided on site fall outside Renting of Immovable Property service due to statutory exclusion. Observations on characterization of franchise fees and specific agreement terms are fact-based ratio for the present appeal.
Conclusion: Demand under Renting of Immovable Property set aside in respect of amounts arising from hotel/accommodation operations and related revenue shares; those receipts are not taxable under that head.
Issue 3 - Commercial Training and Coaching Service
Legal framework: Commercial Coaching Services defined to cover training/coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching center.
Precedent treatment: The tribunal considered the nature and objective of the agreement entered with the Department of Environment & Forest, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, and relevant Ministry communications regarding compulsory one-week training on eco-tourism for nominated officers.
Interpretation and reasoning: The tribunal found that the activities performed under the November 16, 2009 agreement - organizing training for officers in eco-tourism and habitat management pursuant to Ministry instructions - fall within the definition of commercial coaching/training. The services are instructional in nature, structured pursuant to an agreement, and not mere advisory or promotional activities for accommodation; therefore they meet statutory elements of commercial training.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - activities conducted under the government agreement qualify as Commercial Training and Coaching Service. This is a dispositive factual-legal conclusion for the appealed period.
Conclusion: Demand under Commercial Training and Coaching Service is upheld.
Issue 4 - Extended Limitation Period and Penalties
Legal framework: Extended limitation and penalties arise under service tax adjudication provisions when certain conditions are met (not recited in detail in the text); penalties and extended period were imposed by the adjudicating authority.
Precedent treatment: The tribunal reviewed the substantive reclassification outcomes and departmental conduct (departmental intimation from 2011 accepting short-term accommodation classification for later periods; appellant's filings and ST-3 returns).
Interpretation and reasoning: Because the tribunal set aside demands for Tour Operator and Renting of Immovable Property services (substantial portions of the adjudicated demands), the imposition of penalties and invocation of extended limitation in respect of those disallowed demands could not stand. The tribunal therefore set aside the extended period invocation and penalties with consequential relief in accordance with law. The upheld demand for Commercial Training remained subject to normal consequences.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where substantive tax demands are set aside, consequent imposition of extended period and penalties tied to those demands is to be set aside; the tribunal's setting aside of penalties is consequential to the primary rulings. This is a legal consequence rather than mere observation.
Conclusion: Penalties and invocation of extended limitation set aside insofar as they relate to demands that have been disallowed; remaining upheld demand (commercial training) continues with liabilities as per law.
Overall Disposition
The appeal is partially allowed: demands under Tour Operator Service and Renting of Immovable Property are set aside; demand under Commercial Training and Coaching Service is confirmed; extended period and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority are set aside with consequential relief as per law.
Classification of services - Tour Operator services - service of providing wild life, eco adventure tour packages to clients - renting of immovable property service or not - income accounted under the head Ayurvedic receipts, beach resort receipts etc - Commercial training and coaching services - activities undertaken under an agreement with a government department for developing eco-tourism and providing short-duration training - levy of penalties - invocaton of extended period of limitation.
Classification of services - Tour Operator services - service of providing wild life, eco adventure tour packages to clients - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the documents and considering the submissions, the activities undertaken by the Appellant is not falling under the category of tour operators and it is squarely covered by the decisions in the matter of M/s Kerala Backwaters [2018 (2) TMI 1853 - CESTAT BANGALORE].
Classification of service - renting of immovable property service or not - income accounted under the head Ayurvedic receipts, beach resort receipts etc - HELD THAT:- It is found that renting of immovable property services definition exclude building used for hotels, building used solely for residential purposes and building used for the purpose of accommodation including hotels, hostels, boarding houses, holidays accommodation, tents, camping facilities. Therefore the rents received from hotels are not liable for service tax.
Classification of services - Commercial training and coaching services - activities undertaken under an agreement with a government department for developing eco-tourism and providing short-duration training - HELD THAT:- It is found that the definition of the commercial coaching services means any training or coaching provided by a commercial training or coaching center. Considering the agreement dated 16th November, 2009 entered by the Appellant with Department of Environment and Forest, Andaman Nicobar Administration the said activity is falling under the category of commercial coaching to confirm demand.
Extended period of limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- The impugned order confirming the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation and penalty imposed by the adjudication authority are set aside with consequential relief if any in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed in part.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an appeal dismissed by the First Appellate Authority solely for non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be reopened/remanded where the appellant has in fact made the required pre-deposit (including where payment was made under a wrong accounting head due to clerical error).
2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in not considering the appeal on merits when the appellant produced evidence of having deposited the mandatory pre-deposit.
3. Whether payments made to Government accounts under a wrong accounting code (clerical/accounting error) should be treated as valid deposit for purposes of statutory pre-deposit requirements, and what remedial approach applies.
4. Whether the Tribunal may direct remand for de novo consideration and impose conditions on withdrawal/refund of pre-deposit pending remand.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of dismissal for non-payment where pre-deposit was in fact made
Legal framework: Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes mandatory pre-deposit (10% of disputed amount) as condition for consideration of appeals by the Tribunal; the appellate forum may reject/entertain appeals based on compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on departmental clarifying Circular No. 58/7/2003 (20.05.2003) and judicial decisions expressing the principle that where payment has been made but applied under wrong accounting head, the matter should be sorted with PAO and the assessee should not be required to re-pay; decisions cited include Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., and the Gujarat High Court in Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court scrutinized the impugned order and found dismissal was based solely on alleged failure to make the pre-deposit. Both parties agreed (and record showed) that the appellant had deposited the required amount; the only issue was deposition under an incorrect accounting head (clerical error). The Tribunal held that such a clerical/accounting mistake does not extinguish the fact of payment to Government account and cannot justify a dismissal that precludes adjudication on merits. The Circular directs departmental reconciliation with PAO rather than requiring fresh payment; the Gujarat High Court decision supports recognizing credit where the Government account reflects receipt despite wrong code.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the only ground for dismissal is non-deposit, but the appellant has in fact made the statutory pre-deposit (even if misallocated to a wrong accounting code), the appellate authority should not dismiss the appeal and must have regard to departmental procedures (PAO reconciliation); misapplication to wrong head does not render payment invalid. Obiter - observations on administrative remedy sequencing and the exact mechanics of PAO credit adjustments are explanatory.
Conclusions: Dismissal for non-payment was not justified; the appeal must be remanded for adjudication on merits because the mandatory pre-deposit requirement was effectively complied with.
Issue 2 - Duty to decide appeal on merits where first appellate order did not consider merits
Legal framework: Principles of statutory appeal: where an appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds without consideration of merits, appellate or revisional authority may remand for de novo consideration if procedural compliance is established.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal invoked earlier CESTAT decisions and the Circular emphasizing that the assessee need not pay again if amounts are shown as deposited; authorities direct departmental accounting correction and substantive justice vindication by remand where appropriate.
Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order did not address substantive issues; having found statutory pre-deposit satisfied, the Tribunal concluded a remand for de novo consideration by Commissioner (Appeals) was necessary. The Tribunal mandated natural justice observance and time-bound disposal to cure the failure to reach merits at first instance.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - When an appeal is rejected solely for alleged non-compliance but the appellant has complied with the statutory pre-deposit, the proper remedy is remand for de novo consideration on merits; procedural compliance cannot be a subterfuge to avoid adjudication. Obiter - directions on timelines and emphasis on natural justice are procedural guidance but consistent with appellate supervisory powers.
Conclusions: Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to follow natural justice and decide within a specified timeframe.
Issue 3 - Effect of clerical/accounting error in head of payment and departmental obligation
Legal framework: Administrative law principles and departmental circulars govern treatment of payments misapplied to wrong accounting codes; statutory objective of pre-deposit is to ensure payment into Government accounts, not to entrap by technical accounting code mistakes.
Precedent treatment: Circular No. 58/7/2003 directs that when amounts are deposited under wrong accounting codes, the matter should be resolved with the PAO and the assessee must not be required to pay again; Gujarat High Court in Devang Paper Mills held that wrong code entries do not invalidate an undisputed payment and directed departmental accounting correction and credit.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal adopted these authorities to conclude that a clerical wrong-code payment was still a payment into Government account and so should be recognized as satisfying the pre-deposit requirement. The First Appellate Authority's strict approach - treating the payment as nonexistent because of wrong head - was held to be unwarranted and inconsistent with administrative instructions and judicial precedent.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Payment into Government account, albeit under a wrong code, constitutes compliance for pre-deposit purposes where no separate liability corresponding to that incorrect code exists; administrative rectification (PAO) is the appropriate remedy, not dismissal. Obiter - practical instructions on interaction with PAO and refund mechanics are ancillary guidance.
Conclusions: Wrong accounting head due to clerical error does not vitiate the pre-deposit; the department must reconcile/pay-credit rather than compel fresh deposit or penalize the assessee.
Issue 4 - Conditions on pre-deposit pending remand and time-bound disposal
Legal framework: Appellate supervisory powers permit the Tribunal to attach conditions to remand to protect revenue interest and prevent pre-deposit abuse; simultaneous obligation to ensure that appellants do not frustrate proceedings by withdrawing deposits.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referenced practice of imposing conditions that preclude withdrawal or refund claims pending final adjudication on remand to preserve status quo and ensure effective remedy.
Interpretation and reasoning: To balance interests, the Tribunal allowed remand but directed that the appellant shall not withdraw any part of the pre-deposited amount or claim refund until Commissioner (Appeal) disposes of the remand proceedings. The Tribunal also directed prompt disposal within three months, following natural justice, given the age of the appeal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - When remanding an appeal where pre-deposit compliance is contested or rectified post hoc, the Tribunal may prohibit withdrawal/refund of the pre-deposit during remand and prescribe a reasonable time for adjudication. Obiter - the specific three-month timeline is a case-specific directive to expedite justice, not a general rule for all cases.
Conclusions: Remand granted subject to condition that pre-deposit not be withdrawn/refunded until renewal disposal; Commissioner (Appeals) directed to decide de novo within three months observing natural justice.
Rejection of appeal - failure of the appellant to make the mandatory pre-deposit in terms of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has not passed on merits of the case, the matter needs to be remanded for reconsideration by Commissioner (Appeals) as the appellant has deposited the entire amount required to be deposited as mandatory pre-deposit for consideration of the appeal by this Tribunal i.e. 10% of the disputed amount as prescribed by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Since the impugned order do not considers the appeal filed by the appellant on merits, no decision has been rendered on merits by Commissioner (Appeals). Matter needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether settlement of the principal duty-demand under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS-2019) by the main assessee operates to erase or invalidate personal/penal liabilities imposed on co-noticees under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Whether co-noticees who did not themselves file a declaration under SVLDRS-2019 remain liable to the personal penalties once the principal noticee's dues are settled under SVLDRS-2019.
3. Whether any distinction arises from the recovery basis (duty recovery under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or otherwise) that would prevent co-noticees from obtaining relief consequent to the main assessee's settlement under SVLDRS-2019.
4. Precedential question: the binding effect of Division Bench decisions on Single Member Bench decisions on the issue of relief under SVLDRS-2019 as applied to penalties on co-noticees.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Effect of SVLDRS-2019 settlement by principal on penalties imposed on co-noticees
Legal framework: Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019 (SVLDRS-2019) defines "tax dues" and prescribes settlement alternatives, expressly providing for relaxation/forgoing of interest, penalty and other consequences upon prescribed deposit/settlement; Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 permits imposition of personal penalty on persons responsible for contraventions.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on contemporaneous Division Bench decisions holding that SVLDRS-2019's grant of relief to the principal-noticee includes waiver/erasure of penalties not only against the main assessee but also against co-noticees. Those Division Bench authorities were followed rather than distinguished.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Scheme is directed at erasing the "detriment of penalty" in connection with settled "tax dues" and that the Scheme's object is collection of duty (or a percentage thereof) and forgoing interest and penalties. Where the principal noticee's liability is settled under SVLDRS-2019, continuing personal penalties against co-noticees would be inconsistent with the Scheme's purpose and relief provisions, even if the co-noticees did not themselves obtain declarant status under the Scheme.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - SVLDRS-2019 settlement of the main demand entails erasure of penalties flowing from that demand in respect of co-noticees; it is not merely an obiter observation. The decision to set aside penalties in the present appeals is founded on that legal conclusion.
Conclusion: Penalties imposed on co-noticees in respect of a demand that has been settled under SVLDRS-2019 are not sustainable and must be set aside; the Tribunal applied this principle to allow the appeals and erase consequential penal liabilities.
Issue 2 - Relief for co-noticees who did not file declarations under SVLDRS-2019
Legal framework: SVLDRS-2019 contemplates a declarant mechanism and prescribes consequences of deposit/settlement; it does not expressly enumerate co-noticees' separate filing requirements for eradication of penalties where the principal's dues are settled.
Precedent treatment: Division Bench authorities cited by the Tribunal held that co-noticees' penalties do not survive when the principal case is settled under SVLDRS-2019, even if the co-noticees themselves did not file declarations. The Tribunal relied on those Division Bench rulings rather than contrary Single Member Bench authority.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the Scheme's purpose (removal of liability consequences attendant to settled tax dues) as extending relief to co-noticees; the ability of the Scheme to accomplish its aim would be frustrated if penalties on co-noticees could survive solely because they did not separately file a declaration. The logic is that the Scheme erases the penal consequence flowing from the tax dispute once the core tax dues are addressed.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Co-noticees need not have independently filed under SVLDRS-2019 to obtain erasure of penalties where the principal's demand has been settled under the Scheme; this finding is treated as dispositive for the appeals.
Conclusion: Co-noticees' personal penalties are unsustainable and will be set aside notwithstanding absence of their own SVLDRS-2019 declarations, provided the principal's demand has been settled under the Scheme.
Issue 3 - Impact of recovery basis (e.g., Section 11A demand) on co-noticee relief
Legal framework: Section 11A (and analogous recovery provisions) govern duties and their recovery; SVLDRS-2019 addresses "tax dues" and specifies relief percentages and waiver of consequences for settled disputes.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal noted that where the impugned order upheld recovery of duties (including under Section 11A), individual co-appellants may not have been eligible to be declarants at the time; however, Division Bench authority interpreted the Scheme's relief to operate irrespective of such eligibility concerns in respect of penalties.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the Scheme's relief is aimed at tax dues and that certain technical eligibility limitations for declarant status do not defeat the Scheme's intent to erase penalties linked to settled demands. Therefore, the presence of a duty recovery under Section 11A does not preclude erasure of penalties on co-noticees once the principal's liability has been settled under SVLDRS-2019.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The fact that recovery was upheld under Section 11A does not prevent application of SVLDRS-2019 relief to eliminate penalties on co-noticees when the main noticee's case has been settled; this is a central holding applied to the facts.
Conclusion: The recovery basis (including Section 11A) does not, by itself, sustain co-noticee penalties where the principal's tax dues are settled under SVLDRS-2019; penalties are to be set aside.
Issue 4 - Precedential hierarchy: Division Bench rulings vs Single Member Bench rulings
Legal framework: In tribunal practice, Division Bench decisions bind Single Member Bench decisions on questions of law within the same tribunal hierarchy unless distinguished.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal expressly relied upon multiple Division Bench decisions applying SVLDRS-2019 to set aside co-noticee penalties and held that such Division Bench authority prevails over a contrary Single Member Bench decision.
Interpretation and reasoning: Where a Division Bench has consistently interpreted the Scheme to erase penalties on co-noticees, those decisions constitute binding precedent for Single Member Bench rulings; the Tribunal applied this hierarchy to reconcile conflicting authorities and relied on Division Bench ratio to decide the appeals.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Division Bench jurisprudence favorable to co-noticees is binding and governs the outcome where a Single Member Bench took a different view.
Conclusion: The Tribunal followed Division Bench precedent and held that it controls over Single Member Bench decisions, resulting in the setting aside of penalties on co-noticees in the present appeals.
Overall Conclusion Applied to the Present Appeals
Given that the principal noticee's case was settled under SVLDRS-2019 and Division Bench authority establishes that such settlement erases penalties on co-noticees (even absent their own declarations), the penalties imposed on the co-noticees were held not sustainable and were set aside, with consequential relief granted as per law.
Dismissal of appeal as withdrawn - levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - alleged violation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 pertaining to the period from 2002-03 to 2006-07 - HELD THAT:- It is found that the main Appellant M/s. Oriplast Ltd. has gone for Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and accordingly their Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide Final Order No.75424/2020 dated 05.10.2020 [2020 (10) TMI 1402 - CESTAT KOLKATA]
This matter came up before the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Steelage Ltd. & Others v. CCE & ST, Bharuch [2024 (11) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], which has held that 'we find that as of now it is settled that once the duty demand case is settled under SVLDRS-2019, as per Scheme itself, there is a waiver of penalties on the main assessee against whom the demand was confirmed as well as on other co-noticees.'
It is found that the present Appeals are emanating from the proceedings initiated against the company M/s.Ori-Plast Ltd. Since they have opted for Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, their Appeal has been dismissed. Therefore, when the case has not been argued on merits by the main party, the present Appellants may not be in a position to defend their case, which basically is on account of corollary penalties.
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether refund claims for CVD and SAD paid to regularize excess imports under Advance Authorisation/EPCG licences are admissible in cash under Section 142(3) read with Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Whether payment of CVD and SAD made pursuant to a "deficiency memo" issued by the Joint DGFT, without any adjudication or show cause notice alleging fraud/collusion/willful misstatement/suppression, attracts the prohibitory bar in Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and/or Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 to deny Cenvat credit or refund.
3. Whether issuance of a DGFT deficiency letter requesting payment to regularize Advance Authorisation constitutes initiation of assessment/adjudication proceedings under customs/excise law (and thereby permits invocation of penal/disallowance provisions) or is merely an opportunity to regularize bonafide default.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Admissibility of refund in cash under Section 142(3) CGST Act, 2017
Legal framework: Section 142(3) CGST Act, 2017 provides that claims for refund of any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest or other amount paid under the existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with existing law and any amount eventually accruing shall be paid in cash (subject to limited exceptions and provisos).
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied upon a High Court decision recognizing that refunds accruing after appointed day are payable in cash under Section 142(3), and a Tribunal precedent holding that voluntary payments of CVD/SAD (without demand/adjudication) are not hit by disallowance provisions.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal construed Section 142(3) as entitling a person who paid duties under the pre-GST law to cash refund post appointed day if a refund accrues. The provision operates notwithstanding earlier modes of refund under existing law, subject to specified provisos (e.g., carried forward balances). The factual finding was that duties were paid by the claimant to regularize excess import and to obtain DGFT NOC; therefore the claim falls within Section 142(3).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where duties were paid voluntarily to regularize an Advance Authorisation and no adjudication or demand was made, Section 142(3) mandates payment of any accruing refund in cash. Obiter - general observations on interaction with other provisions not necessary to the decision.
Conclusion: Refund claims for CVD and SAD paid to regularize excess imports under Advance Authorisation are admissible in cash under Section 142(3), subject to the provisos of that provision.
Issue 2 - Applicability of Rule 9(1)(b) CCR 2004 and Section 142(8)(a) CGST Act to payments made pursuant to DGFT deficiency memo absent adjudication
Legal framework: Rule 9(1)(b) CCR 2004 denies Cenvat credit where additional duty became recoverable on account of non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of Excise/Customs Act with intent to evade duty; Section 142(8)(a) CGST Act bars credit where tax, interest, fine or penalty is recoverable from the person under existing law.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision which held that in absence of any demand notice or adjudication alleging suppression/fraud, invoking Rule 9(1)(b) is impermissible; mere voluntary payment to regularize excess imports does not amount to suppression or offence.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that Rule 9(1)(b) contemplates a factual finding of fraud/collusion/willful misstatement/suppression or a contravention requiring appropriate initiation (e.g., show cause notice under Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act) before denying credit. Where the assessee pays duties suo moto pursuant to a DGFT deficiency memo and there is no adjudication, demand or finding of suppression/fraud, the disallowance limb of Rule 9(1)(b) cannot be invoked. Similarly, Section 142(8)(a) operates where tax, interest, fine or penalty is recoverable under existing law; voluntary payment without recoverable demand does not trigger that prohibition.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rule 9(1)(b) cannot be applied to deny credit/refund absent initiation of proceedings or adjudication establishing fraud/suppression/contravention; voluntary payments made to regularize licences are not caught. Obiter - commentary on the standard of proof or procedural steps required before invoking penal provisions.
Conclusion: Payments of CVD and SAD made pursuant to a DGFT deficiency memo, in the absence of any show cause notice, adjudication or demand alleging fraud/collusion/suppression, are not hit by Rule 9(1)(b) CCR 2004 or by Section 142(8)(a) CGST Act and cannot be denied refund on that ground.
Issue 3 - Legal character of a DGFT "deficiency letter" and jurisdictional scope of Revenue authorities in such circumstances
Legal framework: DGFT deficiency letters/request for payment arise under Foreign Trade policy/regime; separate statutory procedures (including cancellation/investigation under FTDR/Customs laws) are required to impose penalties or treated as adjudicatory action under Customs/Excise law.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on authority (Circular No. 334/1/2012-TRU and case law) holding that a deficiency memorandum is an opportunity to regularize and does not by itself amount to initiation of recovery/assessment unless followed by relevant statutory action.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that issuance of a deficiency letter merely affords an opportunity to the authorization holder to regularize excess imports; it does not equate to initiation of adjudication or to a determination of fraud/suppression. Where the authorization holder voluntarily surrenders the licence after making payments and obtains NOC, there is no evidence of DGFT or Customs proceeding (no Section 28/11A/11A(4) action) that would convert the payment into a recoverable tax/fine/penalty.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a DGFT deficiency letter seeking payment for regularization is not an adjudicatory order and cannot, without further statutory action, form the basis for denying credit/refund. Obiter - remarks on administrative practice and the need for DGFT cancellation proceedings before further departmental action may be validly taken.
Conclusion: The DGFT deficiency memo in the factual matrix is a regularisation mechanism and does not confer jurisdiction on Revenue to treat the voluntary payment as a recoverable tax/penalty invoking disallowance provisions; consequently, authorities erred in treating the payments as non-refundable on that premise.
Remedial and procedural direction (consequential to the conclusions above)
Because the Tribunal concluded that the prohibitory provisions were inapplicable on the facts and that Section 142(3) entitles claimants to cash refund, the impugned appellate and original orders were set aside and matters remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the refund applications afresh in light of these legal conclusions, within a specified timeframe.
Rejection of refund claims of CVD and SAD, filed by the appellant under Section 142(3) and 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act 2017 - rejection in terms of Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- In Rubamin Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-II, [2024 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], this Tribunal has held that as regards the issue whether the appellant claim of CVD & SAD is hit by Rule 9 (1) (b) or (bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, firstly there is no demand notice in respect of CVD and SAD which was paid by the appellants on their own and also no adjudication as regards the suppression of facts, therefore, in absence of any charge by way of Show Cause Notice or adjudication thereof, the allegation of suppression of facts only to invoke Rule 9 (1) (b) or (bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is on assumption and presumption which cannot be accepted. Moreover, the payment of CVD and SAD is not towards the non-payment of duty by suppression of fact in the present case. The Advance License is on record and since there was excess import as compared to the eligibility under Advance License, the appellant has discharged the duty of CVD and SAD suo-moto for which no offence was made out by the department. Therefore, in these facts, no suppression of fact is involved. Consequently, penal provision under Rule 9 (1) (b) or (bb) shall also not apply.
The issuance of ‘deficiency letter’ asking for making payment of additional duties of excise on account of import of excess of eligible quantities against Advance Authorization, is nothing but mere an opportunity provided to regularize the bonafide default made by Authorization Holder. The issuance of ‘deficiency letter’ does not tantamount to initiation of assessment or adjudication proceedings unless an action is taken against Authorization Holder under the FTDR Act for any misrepresentation or misdeclaration.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Adjudicating Authority have erred in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.
The matters are remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass fresh orders on the applications filed by the appellants for refund of amount pertaining to deposits made by them in the light of these orders - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Whether the notification granting exemption from tax only to asbestos cement sheets and bricks manufactured in Rajasthan, subject to fly ash content and commencement-date conditions, was discriminatory and violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The exemption was confined to a specified class of goods manufactured in the State and was not structured as a neutral incentive applicable on an equal basis to comparable goods imported from outside the State. The notification did not disclose any sufficient reason in its text for the preferential treatment, and the surrounding material did not establish a valid, non-hostile basis capable of taking the measure outside the prohibition in Article 304(a). The earlier line of authority permits only a limited and carefully structured incentive or exemption to a distinct class for a limited period and without protectionist bias. The impugned notification did not satisfy that standard, and the exception recognised in the incentive cases could not be extended to uphold a blanket-local preference of this kind.
Conclusion: The notification was discriminatory and unconstitutional under Article 304(a), and the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A State tax exemption that preferentially burdens imported goods by confining tax relief to locally manufactured goods, without a non-hostile and objectively justifiable basis, violates Article 304(a); only narrowly tailored, time-bound, and non-protectionist incentives are permissible.
Constitutional validity of N/N. S.O.377, dated 09.03.2007, issued by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 8(3) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Grant of exemption from payment of Value Added Tax on sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks, manufactured in the State of Rajasthan, having contents of fly ash 25% or more by weight subject to specific conditions - violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India being discriminatory vis-à-vis goods imported from outside the State of Rajasthan or not - violation of free movement of trade and commerce - Interpretation of Articles 301 to 304 - HELD THAT:- In Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. [1960 (9) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT], the constitutionality of the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act (Assam Act) 13 of 1954 was questioned in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court. The question that fell for determination in this case was, whether, the said Act infringed the provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution, with particular reference to Article 301. While analysing Part XIII of the Constitution, it was observed that Article 301 was subject to other provisions of Part XIII and not subject to other provisions of the Constitution and the generality of the words used in Article 301 is cut down only by the provisions of the other Articles of Part XIII ending with Article 307 - Also, analysing Article 304(a), it was observed that a tax could be levied by a State Legislature on goods manufactured or produced or imported in the State and thereby reasonable restrictions can be placed on the freedom of trade either with another State or between different areas of the same State. Tax legislation, thus authorised, must therefore be deemed to be included in Article 301, for that is the obvious inference from the use of the non-obstante clause - the Assam Act had imposed a direct restriction on the freedom of trade and since it had not complied with the provision of Article 304(b), it was declared to be void.
A seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Automobile (Rajasthan) Transport Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, [1962 (4) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] heard the appeals having regard to the importance of the constitutional issues involved and the views expressed in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. while considering the validity of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. The contours of the freedom envisaged under Article 301 was considered inasmuch as the question, whether, regulatory measures or compensatory taxes were restrictions on the freedom of trade came up for consideration and more particularly, the State law imposing tax on motor vehicles carrying passengers and goods within or throughout the State - A regulation of trade and commerce, on the other hand, may achieve some public purpose which affects trade and commerce incidentally but without impairing the freedom. It was observed that the tax is evidently not a fee for administrative purposes. Therefore, it cannot be justified as representing payment of services. Its object is the raising of revenue. Therefore, such a tax is neither a compensatory tax nor a regulatory Act. It was further held that the said tax offended Article 301 of the Constitution and since resort to the procedure prescribed by Article 304(b) was not taken, it was ultra vires the Constitution.
In Kalyani Stores vs. State of Orissa, [1965 (9) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT] the notifications issued under Section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, imposing countervailing duty on foreign liquor imported into the State and later enhancing the duty by another notification, were assailed. The contention of the appellant therein was that the State could levy under Section 27 of the said Act duty on excisable articles produced or manufactured in the State and a countervailing duty on excisable articles imported into the State, imposed with a view to equalize the burden on the imported articles with the burden on manufactured articles in the State, but no countervailing duty on liquor imported could be levied if there was in the year of licence no liquor similar to the imported liquor manufactured within the State and as there was no distillery in the State manufacturing "foreign liquor", the levy of countervailing duty was without authority of law.
Whether clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 have to be read conjunctively or disjunctively was also considered? - HELD THAT:- Article 304(b) of the Constitution does not deal with taxes as restrictions. That those restrictions referred to in that provision are non-fiscal in nature. Therefore, any constitutional validity of any taxing statute has to be tested only on the anvil of Article 304(a) and if the law is found to be non-discriminatory, it can be declared to be constitutionally valid without the legislation having to go through the test of the process envisaged by Article 304(b). Should, however, the statute fail the test of non-discrimination under Article 304(a), it must be struck down for the same cannot be sustained even if it had gone through the process stipulated by Article 304(b).
Admittedly, the impugned notification restricted the exemption from payment of tax to a specified class of dealers, namely, those who manufactured asbestos cement sheets and bricks having contents of fly ash 25% or more by weight. We also find that, as regards the time period, the impugned notification restricted the exemption to those dealers who commenced commercial production in the State by 31.12.2006 and the exemption was available up to 23.01.2010 - a combined reading of the notifications dated 24.01.2000, 16.03.2005, 05.07.2006 and 28.12.2010 suggests that, initially, the benefit was restricted to dealers who commenced commercial production in the State of Rajasthan by 31.12.2001 and the benefit was upto 23.01.2010. Later, it was extended to those who commenced production by 31.12.2006. While initially the benefit was upto 23.01.2010, by notification dated 28.12.2010, the benefit was made available for ten years from the date of commencement of first commercial production, but with an outer cut-off date of 23.1.2016. There is nothing on record to suggest that the exemption was granted thereafter as well.
In State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952 (1) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT], this Court noted that the expressions “discriminatory” and “hostile” are found to be used by American Judges often simultaneously in connection with discussions on the equal protection clause. That if a legislation is discriminatory and discriminates one person or class of persons against others similarly situated and denies to the former the privileges that are enjoyed by the latter, it has to be regarded as “hostile” in the sense that it affects injuriously the interests of that person or class.
On a survey of the judicial dicta of this Court, what emerges is that in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd., the object and purpose of Part XIII of the Constitution of India and particularly Article 301 was considered and it was observed that while determining the width and amplitude of the freedom guaranteed by the said Article, a rational and workable test should be applied and only if the restrictions impede free flow of trade, it would be barred. Otherwise, taxes imposed on goods would not by themselves impede trade and commerce in the said case, the Assam Act was held to be void as it had not complied with Article 304(b) of the Constitution. While interpreting Article 304(a), it was observed that the State Legislatures have the power to impose tax on the import of goods to which similar goods manufactured or produced in the State are subject, provided that by taxing the goods imported from another State or Union Territory, no discrimination is practised.
Therefore, the notification impugned in these cases dated 09.03.2007 is violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned notification is quashed. The civil appeals are hence allowed.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 prescribes any time limit for finalisation of assessments; (ii) whether an assessment under Section 17D is required to be completed within the period prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; (iii) whether, even in the absence of an express time limit under Section 17D, the Department must finalise the assessment within a reasonable period.
Issue (i): Whether Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 prescribes any time limit for finalisation of assessments.
Analysis: Section 17D is framed with a non obstante clause and sets out the fast track method for completing assessments, but it does not specify any outer time limit for initiation or completion of those proceedings. The provision operates independently of the general limitation scheme and does not itself impose a period within which the fast track assessment must be concluded.
Conclusion: Section 17D does not prescribe an express time limit for finalisation of assessments.
Issue (ii): Whether an assessment under Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is required to be completed within the period prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
Analysis: The Court held that the non obstante clause in Section 17D excludes reference to Section 17(6) for determining the time within which fast track assessments are to be completed. The limitation period under Section 17(6) governs ordinary assessments and cannot be imported into Section 17D proceedings to invalidate the assessments merely because they were completed after the general period mentioned in Section 17(6).
Conclusion: An assessment under Section 17D is not controlled by the period prescribed under Section 17(6).
Issue (iii): Whether, even in the absence of an express time limit under Section 17D, the Department must finalise the assessment within a reasonable period.
Analysis: Where a statute does not prescribe a fixed limitation period, the authority must still act within a reasonable time. That reasonable time is to be assessed with reference to the statutory scheme and analogous limitation periods. Applying that principle, the Court held that fast track assessments under Section 17D could not be kept pending at will and should be initiated and finalised within a reasonable period, taken with reference to the five-year period contemplated by Section 17(6). On that basis, the impugned assessments were held to be beyond time.
Conclusion: The Department was required to finalise the assessments within a reasonable period, and the assessments in question were barred by delay.
Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme of fast track assessment under Section 17D does not permit indefinite delay, and the impugned assessment orders could not be sustained for having been completed beyond a reasonable period.
Ratio Decidendi: Even where a fast track assessment provision contains no express limitation period, the authority must complete the assessment within a reasonable time judged by the statutory scheme and analogous limitation provisions.
Time limitation prescribed u/s 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for finalisation of assessments under Fast track method - assessment u/s 17D of the Act is required to be completed within the period prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act or not - no period prescribed for finalisation of assessments u/s 17D of the Act - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 17D, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader, start with a non obstante clause. The provisions do not speak about the initiation of assessment proceedings within a particular time or finalisation thereof. By virtue of the non obstante clause, there cannot be any reference made to the provisions of Section 17(6) of the Act also. When that be so, it is clear that the respondents could not contend that the finalisation of assessments by Exts.P8 and P9 orders was beyond the period prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act. In this connection, a Division Bench of this Court in Betty Sebastian [2018 (12) TMI 1082 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has categorically found that “a provision for limitation would definitely be in conflict with the scheme of Section 17D”. This Court in ST.Rev.No.11 of 2021, by its judgment dated 24.10.2024, had also followed the dictum laid down in Betty Sebastian, holding that there is no limitation prescribed under Section 17D of the Act for finalisation of assessment steps.
Whether the Department would be entitled to finalise the assessment at its sweet will? - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT] has held that 'It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.'
Similarly, in Union of India v. City Bank [2022 (8) TMI 1107 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has held that when a statute does not prescribe a time limit for initiating an action, it needs to be done within a reasonable time.
Thus, it is trite law that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions of the statute. In that view of the matter, the assessment has to be initiated at least with reference to 5 years as prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, the initiation and finalisation of the assessment were barred by limitation.
There are no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues: Whether the movement of goods from the Rourkela Steel Plant to the appellant's branches in other States under the Time Bound Supply Scheme and Demand Registration Scheme constituted inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or mere stock transfers.
Analysis: The decisive question was whether there was a contract of sale that occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another, with a direct and inextricable nexus between the contract and the movement. The record showed that the plant dispatched standard goods in bulk to branches, the plant documents were in the name of the branches, and the branches thereafter made their own local sales from stock. The earlier appellate order had already held that the scheme itself was only a broad framework and not an offer or agreement of sale, and that a typical transaction did not establish a concluded contract preceding movement. On the materials examined after remand, the later finding that the scheme and pre-offer constituted an agreement of sale could not be sustained, particularly when the goods were not earmarked for identified buyers at the time of dispatch and the branch-level offers and deliveries occurred after receipt of stock. The statutory burden under section 6A stood discharged by the assessee through the established branch-transfer pattern and supporting declarations, and the Revenue failed to show that the movement was occasioned by a prior contract of sale.
Conclusion: The movement of goods was not an inter-State sale; it was a branch stock transfer. The issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: For a transaction to fall within section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the contract of sale must be the proximate cause of the inter-State movement of goods; where bulk goods are transferred to branches independently of any concluded contract with identified buyers and subsequent branch sales are made from stock, the movement is a stock transfer and not an inter-State sale.
Inter-State sale occasioning movement under section 3(a) of the CST Act - branch transfer (stock transfer) as not amounting to inter-State sale - burden of proof under section 6A of the CST Act - Time Bound Supply Scheme (TBS) as scheme/framework vis-a-vis offer/contract - inextricable link between contract of sale and movement of goods - binding effect of findings of the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority on remand
Branch transfer (stock transfer) as not amounting to inter-State sale - inextricable link between contract of sale and movement of goods - Time Bound Supply Scheme (TBS) as scheme/framework vis-a-vis offer/contract - Movements of goods from Rourkela Steel Plant to appellant's own branches for the listed assessment years were stock transfers and not interState sales. - HELD THAT: - After examining the documentary record, prior decisions and the operative attributes of the TBS, the Tribunal found that transfers from Rourkela to branches were bulk despatches in full rake/wagon loads made independent of any concluded contract at the branch. Plant documents were in the name of branches and contained no reference to any specific buyer, registration or pre-offer; final offers were made by branches after receipt or on arrival of wagons; branches retained full discretion to sell or divert stock; and local sales tax was paid by branches on onward sales. The essential elements of an interState sale under section 3(a) - a contract of sale occasioning movement and direct nexus between sale and movement - were absent on the materials. The Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority had earlier observed that the TBS is a regulatory framework and not itself an offer constituting a pre-existing contract; the Tribunal's review of eight typical transactions did not show that movement was occasioned by antecedent contracts of sale. Consequently, the movements were held to be stock transfers and not interState sales for the assessment years in dispute. [Paras 36, 37, 43, 59, 60]
Movements from Rourkela Steel Plant to the appellant's branches for Assessment Years 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 were stock transfers and not interState sales.
Binding effect of findings of the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority on remand - burden of proof under section 6A of the CST Act - Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal, on remand, could record findings contrary to the earlier CST Appellate Authority order and related determinations regarding TBS and typical transactions. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority's order dated 15.03.2010 - which had attained finality and held that the TBS scheme cannot readily be construed as an offer of sale and that some typical transactions did not establish an inextricable link between sale and movement - was binding on the Sales Tax Tribunal on remand. The Sales Tax Tribunal's findings treating the preoffer/offer letters under TBS as antecedent agreements of sale and holding that movement related back to those offers were therefore contrary to the CST Appellate Authority's determinative observations. In view of the CST Appellate Authority's analysis and the High Court decisions on earlier years, the Tribunal's contrary conclusion was unsustainable. [Paras 35, 36, 44, 45, 55]
The Sales Tax Tribunal erred in recording findings contrary to the CST Appellate Authority's remand observations; those contrary findings cannot be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The Sales Tax Tribunal's impugned order dated 29.06.2018 is set aside; the four Central Sales Tax Appeals for Assessment Years 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 are allowed, the movements from Rourkela to the appellant's branches being held as stock transfers and not interState sales.
TaxTMI 