Tag Archives: Income Tax

Income Tax: Government extends time for intimation of Aadhaar and certain other time limits

Newsroom24x7 Network

New Delhi: Keeping in view the difficulties faced by the taxpayers, the Central Government has issued notification on Wednesday 31 March extending the last date for the intimation of Aadhaar number and linking thereof with PAN to 30 June, 2021.

The extended last date for intimating Aadhaar number under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the purposes of linking Aadhaar with PAN was 31 March, 2021. Representations had been received by the Government from taxpayers that the last date for intimating the Aadhaar number may further be extended in the wake of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic.

The notification also has extended time-limits for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, passing of consequential order for direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and processing of equalisation levy statements to 30 April, 2021.

In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, certain time limits specified under the various tax and Benami laws have been extended by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and subsequent notifications issued under this Act.

IT raids across many States to smash the racket of generation of huge cash through fake billing

Newsroom24x7 Network

New Delhi: The Income tax Department has carried out a search and seizure action on Monday 26 October 2020 on a large network of individuals running the racket of entry operation and generation of huge cash through fake billing. The search operations have been conducted on 42 premises across Delhi- NCR, Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Goa.

The search has led to seizure of evidences exposing the entire network of the entry operators, intermediaries, cash handlers, the beneficiaries and the firms and companies involved. So far, documents evidencing accommodation entries of more than Rs. 500 crore have already been found and seized.

Several shell entities/firms were used by the searched entry operators for layering of unaccounted money and cash withdrawals against fake bills issued and unsecured loans given. The personal staff/employees/associates had been made dummy directors/partners of these shell entities and all bank accounts were managed and controlled by these entry operators. Statements of such entry operators, their dummy partners/employees, the cash handlers as well as the covered beneficiaries have also been recorded clearly validating the entire money trail.

 The searched persons were also found to be controller and beneficial owners of several bank accounts and lockers, opened in names of their family members and trusted employees and shell entities, which they were managing in collusion with the bank officials, through the digital media. The same are being further investigated.

 The beneficiaries have been found to have made huge investments in real estate properties in prime cities and in fixed deposits to the tune of several hundred crores of rupees.

 During the search, cash of Rs. 2.37 crore and jewellery worth Rs. 2.89 crore has been found along with 17 bank lockers, which are yet to be operated.

Further investigations are in progress.

BCCI follows CIC order submits details of Taxes paid year wise for AY 2004-05 to 2017-18

Newsroom24x7 network

New Delhi: In response to an interim order issued by the Central Information Commission on 4 May 2018, the Income Tax department has submitted a written submission giving details of the taxes paid year-wise by Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as available in the Oltas, ITD and E-filing Portal for the AY 2004-05 to 2017-18.

The details furnished are as follows:

Appellant Omprakash Kashiram, a resident of Mumbai had filed an appeal against the order of the first Appellate Authority on 8 March 2017 against the CPIO & Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (2), Mumbai seeking information regarding the year-wise tax paid by the BCCI from 26 January 1950 to 2016.

The CPIO, through its letter of 18 October 2016, had denied disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant had approached the First Appellate Auhority (FAA).

The Respondent submitted before the Central Information Commission that initially the information sought was denied undeer Section 8 (1) (j) by the then CPIO. However, subsequent to taking over of the charge, on deputation he had sought the consent of the third party i.e. BCCI under Section 11 and would provide the information, if not denied by the third party. It was also conveyed that the information regarding the tax paid was also available in the public domain on the website of BCCI. On being queried, if he was aware of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of BCCI vs. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251 and the subsequent recommendation of the Law Commission of India in its Report of 18 April 2018 recommending that the RTI Act be made applicable to the BCCI along with all of its constituent member cricketing associations provided they fulfilled the criteria applicable to BCCI, the Respondent replied in the affirmative. He also confirmed that he had been reading media reports on the above issue.

The Commission also observed that similar issues were adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000197-BJ-FINAL on 5 January 2018 wherein the Appellant had inter alia sought information regarding the details about the Income Tax Arrears pending towards BCCI from the Ministry of Finance. In the said matter, the Commission while allowing disclosure of information observed that the matter involved larger public interest regarding payment of income tax by a body which administers, regulates and controls the game of cricket followed by large number of cricketing fans all over the country. In compliance with the said decision, the Respondent compiled the said information from the o/o the Pr. CIT, Mumbai itself and provided the same as per dossiers of BCCI for AY 2011-12. The Respondent while taking note of the earlier decision of the Commission agreed to disclose the details as available with them expeditiously and not later than 7 days from the date of this order to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission.

The Appellant was not present to contest the submission of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

The Central Information Commissioner Bimal Julka on 4 May 2018 had passed an interim order directing the Respondent to provide information available on their record within a period of 7 days i.e. before 11 May 2018 to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission. Subsequent to receipt of the reply from the Respondent, the Commission pronounced its final decision in the matter on 11 May. 

Disposing the appeal, the CIC has said in its final order that no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

CBDT warns Assessing Officers against expanding the scope of limited scrutiny in arbitrary manner

Newsroom24x7 Network

New Delhi: Instances where the scope of limited scrutiny has been expanded  by assessing officers of the Income Tax Department without going through the due process have been viewed very seriously by CBDT.

A CBDT memo of 30 November 2017 on unauthorised expansion of scope of limited scrutiny to all assessing officers points out that instances have come to the notice of CBDT where some assessing officers officers are going beyond their jurisdiction while making assessments in limited scrutiny cases by initiating new inquiries on new issues without complying with mandatory requirements of the relevant CBDT instructions issued on 26 September 2014, 29 December 2015, and 14 July 2016.

The CBDT has issued the instruction that assessing officers should abide by the instructions of CBDT while completing limited scrutiny assessments and should be scrupulous about maintainance of  note sheets in assessment folders.

It has been underscored by the CBDT that the Central Inspection Team of the CBDT was tasked with examination of assessment records on receipt of allegations of several irregularities. In one instance it was found that no reason had been sighted for expanding the scope of limited scrutiny and no approval had been taken from the Principal commissioner of Income Tax for conversion of limited scrutiny case to a complete scrutiny case and this gives rise to a very strong suspicion of mala fide intention and the concerned officer has been placed under suspension.

The officer suspended by CBDT, a deputy commissioner of income tax, has alleged that he has been victimised under the influence of an influential relative of a taxpayer.