This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from February 12 to February 18, 2023.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) recently condoned the delay of 36 days by a Non-Resident Indian and held that it was human nature to forget things which are out of mind.
The single bench of the ITAT Consisting of Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that the mistake of the assessee is bonafide and it is human nature to forget things which is out of his mind and I do find that the inaction on the part of the assessee is unintentional being a non-resident.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench has recently, in an appeal filed before it, confirmed the denial of Tax benefit u/s.54 for non-deposit in Capital Gain Account Scheme.
A Coram comprising Justice Mahavir Singh and Manjunatha (accountant member) observed that the assessee could not furnish any evidences with regard to completion of construction of house within three years from the date of sale of original asset and also any other evidences to prove that amount has been spent for construction of house property, except filing a statement referring certain payments to M/s. Keshthana Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and claimed that said payments are for construction of house property.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)Kolkata Bench observed that the assessing officer could not point out deficiency in documents, therefore no addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench consisted of the judicial member Sonjoysarma, GirishAgrawal (accountant member) observed that assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions towards sum of Rs.121.50 lacks received during the impugned year and we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made towards share capital and share premium u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that Income Tax Penalty under section 271E of Income Tax Act 1961 could not be imposed mechanically.
The division bench of ITAT comprising Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) and Chandra Mohan Garg, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that the Income from sale of Land considered as “Stock-in- Trade” by builder and Taxable as Business income, not capital gain.
A Coram comprising Justice Mahavir Singh and Manjunatha (accountant member) observed that the profit or loss derived from sale of land under the head ‘income from business or profession’ and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that SI Group India is eligible for depreciation in respect of technical know-how and on embedded process technology.
The division bench of ITAT comprising Prashant Maharishi, (Accountant Member) and Pavan Kumar Gadale, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that assessee eligible for depreciation on the technical know-how because the damaged machinery was rebuilt and the same was capitalizing the books of accounts.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed deduction under Section 80G of the income tax act 1961 observing that the donation to trust by conversion of loans would be treated as ‘donation paid in cash’.
The Chennai Bench of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal observing that, Assessee Company had paid part donations through proper banking channels during the relevant previous year. The remaining part of donations had been converted out of loans given to Trust in earlier financial years. The AO treated donations converted out of loans given in earlier financial years as donations in kind and denied deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that assessees are not eligible for deduction under section 80IC of Income Tax Act 1961, if the plant is not situated in a notified area of Government.
The single bench of ITAT of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that the assessee plant is not situated in the notified area hence there is no infirmity in the order passed by authorities below.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that payment of monthly retainership fees to Chartered Accountants is not capital in nature.
The division bench of ITAT comprising Anil Chaturvedi (Accountant) and. Yogesh Kumar US, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and observed that the payment is towards the professional fee, which include monthly retainership fees for the professional services. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by assessee has given a finding that the expenses claimed by the assessee have been incurred during the regular course of business and cannot be treated as capital expenses hence the order of the CIT(A) was correct .
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Pune Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that interest paid on customs duty is deductible u/s 43 B Of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Pune ITAT consisting of S.S Godara, the Judicial Member, and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, the Accountant Member, observed: “The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shankar Trading Co P Ltd Vs CIT, has held that it is an allowable deduction u/s43B of the Act.The facts of the Shankar trading Co P. Ltd (supra) and that of the assessee are identical. In the case of the assessee, the assessee has paid Interest on Customs Duty. In the case of the assessee the Interest on Customs Duty is automatic. Hence, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court is applicable in the case of the assessee.”
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961 on contravention of Section 269SS for sale of property for Hindu Undivided Family.
The Division Bench of Mahavir Singh, (Vice President) and G. Manjunatha, (Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee observing that, “As regards, the claim of the assessee that property was owned by HUF, if you go by date of generating PAN number for HUF, the assessee HUF has generated PAN number on 03.03.2017 much after the date of sale of asset. Further, the appellant has filed a return for HUF capacity on 30.03.2018. In our considered view, the documents relied upon by the assessee can only be considered as an afterthought to circumvent penalty proceedings initiated in his individual capacity.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that if the sale deed does not mention the share held by co- owners, there would be equal income tax liability on rental income.
The Bench of Delhi ITAT consisting of Anil Chaturvedi, the Accountant Member, along with Astha Chandra, the Judicial Member, observed: “The decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Ajit Kumar Rao’s case (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR also does not help the assessee. In that case, the assessee’s wife had purchased a flat in her name but she being the housewife did not have an independent source of income and the entire investment was made by the assessee (husband). It was in such a scenario that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the income from property should be taxed in the hands of the assessee (husband) and not in the hands of his wife.”
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that voluntary contributions received towards the corpus of trust could not be taxable.
The division bench of the Inturi Rama Rao, (Accountant Member) S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that voluntary donations received for specific purpose forming the corpus of assessee’s trust were directly made to the Balance sheet as the capital receipt. Also corpus specific voluntary donations are not taxable in the case of unregistered trust.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an addition on the difference in stock as per books and valuation report can’t be made without credible evidence.
A Coram comprising of Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member observed that the assessee has categorized the percentage of actual gold as well as the percentage of the material used for manufacturing of 24 karats, 22 carats, 18 karats, 14 karats, and 12 karat gold jewelry. Further, from the valuation report, it was also evident that the gold jewelry noted by the government valuer is of varying purity levels, i.e. 18 karat, 14 karat, etc.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that adverse inference can’t be drawn against the assessee based on misuse of the share market to bogus capital gain by some persons (Portfolio Manager).
A Coram Comprising of Shri Aby T Varkey, JM and Shri M Balaganesh, AM observed that the AO relying merely on the DDIT(Inv.) report and taking note of the modus- operandi resorted by certain persons indulging in converting their black money through LTCG.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench (“SMC” New Delhi) held that PoA Holder is not ‘owner’ of the property and not considered as Capital Gain Tax.
The single bench of Shri Kula Bharat observed that there is no ambiguity under the law for chargeability of capital gain in respect of transfer of any capital asset. It is the owner of capital assets who would be liable for capital gain. In case the sale consideration is credited into the account of a third party or the attorney of such owner, in that event also the money which has been credited in the account of the third party or the power of attorney cannot be subjected to tax under the head ‘capital gains’.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Dehradun Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, granted relief to an assessee, in a case where the online filing of appeal by a foreign national failed, due to the reason of him not having an Aadhar.
The ITAT Panel consists of Yogesh Kumar US, the Judicial Member, along with Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, the Accountant Member, observed: “The assessee, a foreign national, cannot be expected to do an unfeasible task before filing the appeal. The rules and procedures are meant to enable easy & speedy justice and are not meant to be an impediment in dispensation of justice. No prejudice would be caused if the matter is adjudicated on merits in the instant Form 35.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that TDS credit shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable.
The Ahmadabad ITAT held: “Accordingly, I am of the view that the assessee should be allowed the benefit of TDS credit in the AY 2017-18 subject to the verification. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms of the above direction.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that the provision for capital gain exemption u/s 54F is the beneficial provision, and hence that substantial compliance would entitle an assessee to claim the full deduction.
The Chennai ITAT commented: “It could be seen that the assessee has entered into a sale agreement dated 15.05.2013 for the sale of property for Rs.283 Lacks. The terms of the sale agreement have been honored and the intended purchaser has paid sale consideration from time to time. The full sale consideration has been paid on 16.12.2013 whereas the sale deed has been executed on 23.02.2015. The possession is stated to be handed over on 15.10.2014. As against installments so received, the assessee has purchased land on 29.11.2013 which falls within one year from receipt of full sale consideration as well as handing over of the possession.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while disallowing capital gain exemption u/s 54 F, held that non- registered banakhat is not a valid document for property transfer.
The Ahmedabad ITAT, finally held: “Even in the sale deed there is no mention of Banakhat. The issue of invoking the exemption under sec 54F was also held invalid by the lower authorities. The onus to prove the findings of the authorities below as not justified lies upon the assessee. However, the assessee has not brought anything contrary to the findings of the authorities below. As such, it seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his claims as he failed to appear despite giving so many opportunities by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding given by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed.”
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has confirmed the addition in respect of the commission earned from 54 paper companies.
the Division Bench of S Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal observing that, “It is proved on record that assessee being into the business of providing accommodation entries for an unsecured loan, share application money, long-term capital gain, for bogus sales and purchases, for entries of turnover trading and accommodation entries for facilitating exempt income from bogus LTCG in penny stock by floating paper companies and by charging commissions, which is nothing but a fraud on the state exchequer,”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that no penalty can be imposed if income is already offered to tax by a different entity.
The ITAT Bench composed of Annapurna Gupta, the Accountant Member, along with Siddhartha Nautiyal, the Judicial Member observed: “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in the case of Patel Chemical Works v. Assessing Officer, the High Court has held that in penalty proceedings, factum of the very same income having been offered to tax by different entity and having been taxed substantially in hands of other entity becomes a relevant factor for determining whether the assessee has concealed the said income or furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the said income which has already been taxed after being shown in hands of different entity,namely, other than assessee.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the payment towards social security schemes outside India for Expat employees would not come under salary and no Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) shall be applicable.
B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue observing that, “In our considered opinion, the social security contributions do not constitute income from salary in the hands of expatriate employees and the employees do not have any right over such contributions. The same will not take care of the character of salary in the year of contribution. Therefore, in our opinion, the deletion of the disallowance made by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 63,57,485/- made by the A.O. u/s 40(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source on amounts paid for the expat employees.”
The Division Bench of Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Microsoft regional sales could not be taxed instead of Mol observing that, “such flip flops could not be legally supported”.
The Delhi Bench of SaktijitDey (Judicial Member) and B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member) deleted the addition and allowed the appeal observing that “we hereby hold that such flip flop cannot be legally supported and hence the addition made in the hands of the assessee is liable to be deleted.”
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Tax Deduction at Source on interest on bank deposit could not be denied due to non-submission of statement by wife while clubbing the income.
The Division Bench of R.S. Syal (Vice President) and S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) allowed the TDS and observed that, “The total interest income received by the assessee’s wife got taxed partly in her own assessment and partly in the assessment of her husband, the assessee in question, as per the mandate of section 64. The benefit of TDS has also been claimed accordingly. Merely because the assessee’s wife did not furnish declaration to the bank in terms of proviso to Rule 37BA(2), the amount of tax deducted at source, which is otherwise with the Department, cannot be allowed to remain with it eternally without allowing any corresponding credit to the person who has been subjected to tax in respect of such income.”
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently while giving relief to Price water house Coopers Pvt. Limited directs the first appellate authority to re-adjudication on income tax penalty cases.
The division bench of the ITAT compraising Shri RajpalYadav, (Vice-President) and Girish Agrawal, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that the order of the CIT Appeals was not sustainable and direct the authority to re-adjudication of the matter
The Raipur bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that a huge delay of 1563 days for filing an appeal could not be attributed to a chartered accountant.
The single bench of the ITAT Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal and observed that “Delay of 1563 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee that the same had occasioned on account of failure on the part of his regular chartered accountant in properly guiding him as regards filing of the appeals before the Tribunal” Further the bench determined that the assessee had failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay involved in preferring of the captioned appeals.
Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) partially upholds the addition in the absence of statement of affairs for justifying the closing cash balance.
The Accountant Member Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Observed that the AO has made the addition under Section 69 of the Act of Rs.12,75,802/- for want of proper explanation of cash deposited during demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate proceedings the assessee did not file any cash flow statement or any statement of affairs for justifying the cash lying with him in the past years. Though he was not required to maintain books of accounts as per section 44AA (2) but can prepare a statement of affairs for justifying his closing cash balance at the end of year. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) recently held that advance given to protect business interest of assessee –company did not attract provisions of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) Income Tax Act 1961.
After considering both contention the division bench of the ITAT compraising Chandra Mohan Garg, (Judicial Member) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya, (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and observed that “If such loan or advances are given to such shareholders as a consequence of any further consideration which is beneficial to the company received from such shareholders then in such advance or loan cannot be said to be deemed dividend within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.”
The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief to AdaniWilmar by dismissing 18 appeals filed by the income tax department.
The Delhi Bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) dismissed the18 appeals filed by the department referring various decisions passed by the High Court, the SpecialBench of the ITAT and decision in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2016-17, in the same issue observed that, “CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that in case of payments made to nonresidents,theassessee was entitled to deduct taxes at source at the rate applicable in the respective Tax Treaties in case PAN of non-resident payee is not available. In the instant facts, it is not the allegation of the Department That taxes have not been deducted at source by taking recourse to relevant clauses of the Tax Treaty enabling the assessee not to deduct tax at source in respect of payments made to non-resident payees.” “In the instant facts, the assessee has deducted taxes at the beneficial rate of 10% as applicable in the respective Tax Treaties in respect of all payments made to non-resident payees.”
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that failure to satisfy the condition of advancement of any other object of general public utility curbs to avail the benefit of Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Coram comprising of Shri R S Syal, Vice President and Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member observed that the assessee earned a huge margin on performance of the activity, which is like business, it ceases to fall within the domain of “charitable purpose”, as the business receipts exceed 20% of the total receipts.
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the interest paid on delayed deposit of income tax or Tax Deducted at source (TDS) would not be allowable as expenditure.
The Division Bench of Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) and Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal observing that, “Once, the Deductee pays the due taxes, the Deductor is absolved from the said tax liability but not of the interest liability on the delayed payment. Allowing of such interest payment on delayed deposit of TDS as deduction would defeat the very purpose of the TDS provisions ensuring the deduction of taxes from the income of the recipient and the payment/deposit thereof with the central Govt. within the due time.”
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the education cess would not be allowable as expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Division bench of S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) And Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) allowed this ground observing that, “We find that Finance Act, 2022 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2005 inserted Explanation 3 to section 40(a)(ii), whereby it has been provided that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge of cess, by whatever name called, on such tax.”
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted the penalty as quantum addition does not attain finality.
The Coram comprising the Judicial Member V. Durga Rao and the Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal observed that the quantum addition has not attained its finality, the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act stands deleted. However, the Assessing Officer has the liberty to pass the order under section 270A of the Act, if any, after concluding the assessment order afresh consequent upon the order passed by the CIT (E) under section 12AA of the Act and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held purchase of property within a specified period of one year before sale of capital asset allowable as capital gain exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961.
the division bench of ITAT comprising M. Balaganesh, (Accountant) and Rahul Chaudhary, (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee The bench further observed that “in terms of Section 2(47(v) of the Act, the transfer of Capital Asset took place on 30.09.2012, which fell within the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Appellant had purchased residential property on 17.08.2012 which fell within the specified period of one year before the sale of the Capital Asset. The Appellant was, therefore, entitled to claim exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961.”
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently refused to condone the delay and remarked that “preferring an Appeal does not mean mere formally filing it but also taking all the steps to effectively pursue the appeal”
The Coram comprising of the accountant member Anil Chaturvedi, and the judicial member, Narenderkumar choudhary, observed that the matter was listed for hearing on various occasions in the past but on all those dates there was neither any appearance by the assessee or his Counsel or any adjournment application was filed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Kolkata Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, held that addition of deemed rent cannot be made in respect of non- habitable residential flat.
The Kolkata ITAT held: “Under these given facts and circumstances of the case since the residential flat at Ghaziabad is not habitable, therefore, ld. AO was not justified in making an addition for Deemed Rental Income in the hands of the assessee. We accordingly reverse the finding of ld. CIT (A) and delete the addition made by ld. AO at Rs. 72,000/-. Hence, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, while imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 on the assessee, for restoration of ex- parte order, held that mistakes must be expected during migration from physical hearing to faceless.
The ITAT Bench held: “This being so, in the interest of justice and to reduce the possible round of litigation, the issues on merits in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for re adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. As the assessments have been done ex-parte, the assessee shall pay a cost of Rs.25, 000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) per assessment year under consideration to the Income Tax Department and a copy of the challan may be produced before the AO. It is hereby clarified that the cost of Rs.25, 000/- per assessment year under consideration is not adjustable against any tax liabilities or dues for any of the assessment years.”
The Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that no penalty shall be levied under Section 271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for non-compliance of section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act.
B. R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) and S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal observing that, “The assessee was served with the notices issued by the AO and subsequently reply of notices were sent by the assessee is also on record. The reasons explained by the assessee were bona fide and reasonable before the CIT (A) where the CIT (A) has not been taken into consideration.”
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate tribunal (ITAT) has allowed capital gain exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961, on finding that the purchase of flats was out of sale proceeds of gold jewelry.
The Mumbai Bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal observing that “The proximity of the sale of gold jewelry and payments made towards purchase of flat establishes live nexus between sale of gold jewelry and purchase of flat. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.”
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the tax department could not swallow the tax paid by the assessee and deny the credit of tax deducted.
The Division Bench of Aby T Varkey (Judicial Member) And Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order and held that The Department could not swallow tax paid by the assessee and deny credit of tax deducted, which pertained to the assessee.
The Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the registration of charitable trust could not be canceled with retrospective effect.
The Division bench of Baskaran Br, (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Gosain, (Judicial Member) quashed the impugned order observing that, “we are of the opinion that in the present case the ld. Pr.CIT (Central) has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Accordingly, we quash the same. Even otherwise we are also of the view that no retrospective cancellation could be made as neither in the Sec. 12AA (3) nor in Sec. 12AA (4) it has been provided or is seen to have been explicitly provided to have a retrospective character or intent. Therefore, without a specific mention of the amended provisions to operate retrospectively no cancellation for the past years could be ordered.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
