Jurispruden tiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Certificate from Department of Psychiatry is not sufficient to hold that the MD was incapacitated from filing the appeals – Seven year delay not condoned by Tribunal.

“We do not find satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay– medical certificate furnished by the appellant states that the Managing Director of the appellant company had consulted the Doctor on 1.3.2000 for his psychological problem, that he was suffering from Schizophrenia, he was advised medicine and regular follow up and therefore, he was referred to Department of Psychiatry, Sir J.J.Hospital, Mumbai. This certificate is dated 31.10.06. However, this certificate is not sufficient to hold that the Managing Director of the company was incapacitated from filing the appeals.”

Central Excise

One cannot suppress a fact which was never within his knowledge: CESTAT

Tribunal has held that the VAO's certificates and the Tea Board Registration certificate are statutory documents in favour of which there is a presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, which, of course, is a rebuttal presumption. Further the AITRs relied by the department cannot be accepted as having an effect of disproving the assessee's bonafide belief which was based on statutory documents like VAO's certificates. The bench also accepted the argument that they had no knowledge about the AITRs and concluded that the assessee cannot be held to have suppressed anything which were never within their knowledge and set aside the demand on the grounds of limitation.

Income Tax

Silver seized by police - Income Tax Department cannot claim possession before case is decided: MP High Court

In the present case, the CIT was not in the possession of such information as to arrive to a conclusion that the silver pertains to undisclosed assets of the assessee. Moreover, silver was found in the possession of the employees of the respondent company and neither the police nor the CIT had at this stage of the proceedings gathered any information on record regarding the ownership of the silver to dispute the version of the respondent company. It was then fallacious on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch to have entertained the application under s. 132A of the IT Act and directed the handing over of the seized silver/assets to the Department.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements