Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.CESTAT

Pre-deposit ordered by CESTAT upheld by Apex Court but time for deposit was extended – Appellant failed to comply with this deadline and makes payment subsequently - CESTAT does not have power to condone such a delay and restore appeal rejected earlier for non-compliance.

THE first two deposits were made within the time stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The last payment was far beyond the prescribed period. The question is whether we can condone the delay involved in the payment of Rs.1.00 Crore made on 14.09.2009. Obviously, we can't. Where the Hon'ble Supreme Court stipulated a period for deposit of an amount by the appellant, they ought to have complied with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Where the appellant made the deposit belatedly, it was open to them to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court for condonation of the day. Neither this Tribunal nor, in our view, even the Hon'ble High Court can condone such delay.

Income Tax

Gift - immediate source of gift is admittedly established to be from a third party, donor had appeared in person before AO and confirmed making of gift and the reasons which persuaded him to make the gift, to be treated as genuine – ITAT by majority.

THE adverse facts i) that the assessee or his family had never made any gift of any amount to anybody; ii) that the gift was not on any occasion or function; iii) that the donor visited his house one or two times though, never beyond the drawing room; iv) that the donor is the person of low financial status having monthly income of less than Rs.5,000/- and has shown withdrawals from his capital account less than Rs.3000/- per month; v) that the donor has no house no telephone number, no fixed deposit and not any other immoveable assets; or that the original deposit by the donor of Rs.1,25,000 with Balaji Trading Corp. was not proved are not so material to hold the gift not a genuine one or sources thereof unsatisfactory so long as the immediate source of the gift is admittedly established to be from a third party, the donor had appeared in person before the AO and confirmed the making of the gift and the reasons which persuaded him to make the gift, he being the friend of the assessee's father who helped him in past.

Customs

Customs House Agents - CHALR – Examination passed under old CHALR, 1984 does not entitle for a licence under CHALR, 2004 – High Court

THE appellants/writ petitioners at best were having liberty to apply for licence. The same cannot be treated as a vested right. The appellants have not even applied for licence under Regulation of the year 1984 and the eligibility condition having been changed drastically in the year 2004 due to the intricacies of the procedures to be followed by the Customs House Agents, the respondents cannot be found fault with.

See our columns Monday for the judgements