Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(All.)489
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2.1. The assessee has listed as many as 11 grounds of appeal in the original memorandum of appeal, which were later on regrouped as per the direction of the Bench. The grounds originally taken and as regrouped read as under : (i) That the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions/disallowances while determining undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 158BB of the IT Act, 1961 : (a) Rs. 1,28,856 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged unaccounted sales outside the books of account vide para 11 of the Order. (b) Rs. 51,50,000 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged income from undisclosed sources vide para 78.2 of the Order. (c) Rs. 44,000 addition in financial year 1994-95 for alleged income from undisclosed sources as the unex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(All.)810
1. The appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 28th Dec., 1998, pertaining to the asst. yr.1997-98.2. Though three grounds have been taken, effectively the Revenue is aggrieved by the relief of Rs. 1,05,800 granted by the first appellate authority.3. The facts in brief are that the assessee, through its head office in the name of "Mathura Das Ashok Kumar" and two branches in the names of "Ashok Creation" and "Ankit Sarees", has been carrying on the business of dealing in Banarsi sarees. Purchases are made from various established parties of organised sector as also directly from the Karigars scattered in different mohallas of Varanasi as also in its peripheral areas. For the business activities so carried on by the assessee, it had been maintaining books of account in regular course which are subjected to tax audit also under s. 44AB, year after year.The trading results were invariably accepted on the fact. A statement in this respect as ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC56
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-Bank against the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in case No. Original Application 240/01, whereby and whereunder the claim of recovery for Rs. 10,29,497/-,' of the appellant Bank against the respondents has been rejected.2. The respondent No. 1 is a proprietorship firm, defendant No. 2 is its proprietor and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are guarantors of the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is manufacturing and doing business of resin, varnish etc. at Haldwani in the district of Nainital. Defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 took a cash credit loan from the appellant Bank and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood its guarantors and all the Banking documents as per the Banking Regulation have been executed by the borrowers including mortgage of the property. During the course of business one party of Delhi approached defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for purchase of their products. Defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)BC228
1. In all these above seven appeals a preliminary issue has crept up on the objection raised by the Registrar regarding non-payment of fees under Rule 8(2) of D.R.A.T. Rules, 1994. According to the Registrar, until the fees as required under Rule 8(2) are paid, the appeals cannot be registered. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted before the Registrar that the matter be referred to the Bench as to necessity of payment of fees as per Rule 8(2) of the D.R.A.T. Rules. The contention of the Registrar was that for entertaining an appeal under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, fees are required to be paid by the aggrieved appellant as per Rule 8(2) of the D.R.A.T. Rules. On the other hand, a broad submission of the appellants is that all the appeals preferred are against the interlocutory orders passed by the concerned D.R.Ts. on the petition filed for some relief during the pendency of the Original Application and as such when no finality has been arrived at regarding the debts d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC218
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24th December, 2002 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in Miscellaneous Application No. 95/02, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(henceforth shall be referred to as the RDDBFI Act) for setting aside the final order dated 21st December, 2001 passed in T.A. No. 1197 2000 has been rejected.1. At the very first instance it should be mentioned here that the petition by way of affidavit alone under Section 22(2)(g) of the RDDBFI Act was filed by the appellant No. 1/1 Manju Jaiswal alone, the other appellants, some of whom are her minor children, have never joined the appellant No. 1/1 in filing the petition under Section 22(2)(g) of the RDDBFI Act and in that way the other appellants in this appeal except that of appellant No. 1/1 have no right to prefer the appeal and in that way they are non-suited. Late ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC253
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2004 passed by Mr. K.D. Khan, Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in transfer application No. 863/98, whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 11,30,661/- against the defendant-respondents has been dismissed.2. There is a chequered history of the case. The erstwhile New Bank of India have been amalgamated in the appellant Punjab National Bank vide notification dated 4th September, 1993. The defendant-respondent No. 1 is a proprietary firm owned by Sunit Gupta, wife of Mr. Bharat Kumar alias Ramesh Kumar, who happens to be the defendant respondent No. 2 in the case. The defendant No. 1 for carrying her business of production of oil was granted loan of cash credit (hypothecation) of Rs. 4 lakh on 5th October, 1994 and another loan was granted to the tune of Rs. 4 lakh under cash credit (pledged) account on 10th March, 1996. Defendant No 2 stood as a guarantor of defendant No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1509
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The District Judgeship of Baghpat, which came into existence on account of the newly created District of Baghpat, has engaged the attention of the High Court continuously on account of un-ending controversies surrounding the appointments made in the Ministerial Cadre and has given rise to litigation which, in turn, has been the subject matter of adjudication on the judicial side of this Court. The present litigation is the second in the series of the recent controversial appointments made which have been scrutinized on the [judicial side and we have been again called upon to pronounce a verdict which, as the facts would disclose hereinafter, contain a disclosure of unsavoury acts which are not only unsustainable in the eyes of law but have also provided an opportunity to this Court to again seriously think over to provide for remedial measures in order to prevent any future mishaps which might tarnish the image of our system.2. This newly created Judgeship has become...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3514
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, P. D. Tandon, and pertain to the same property covered by Survey No. 143 situate in Old Cantonment, Allahabad. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13353 of 1992 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 and the writ petition was dismissed while Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28558 of 2002 was decided and allowed by another Division Bench of this Court vide judgment an order dated 5.3.2003. The aforesaid judgments and orders of this Court were questioned by way of Civil Appeal No. 7284 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 6637 of 2003, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 accepted both the appeals. Orders under appeals were set aside and the petitions were remanded to the High Court for fresh decision by the same Bench. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the direction issued by the Hon'ble...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(All.)123
1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order under Section 263 of the Act, dt. 27th Feb., 2004, passed by the learned CIT, whereby he has cancelled the "regular assessment" order dt. 28th March, 2002 (as had been passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range-2, Allahabad), with the direction to the AO "to reframe the assessment order after proper scrutiny and investigation and also after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard on all the issues". 1. Because the learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the AO has failed to make proper enquiry into the facts of the case and on that ground in further holding that the regular assessment order dt. 28th March, 2002, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Range-11,. Allahabad, is "erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" and in cancelling the assessment with the direction to the AO to reframe the assessment order. 2. Because the assessment order dt. 28th March, 2002, as had been passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3349; 2005(4)ESC2482
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. A clear vacancy of a teacher in Commerce in L.T. Grade arose in D.A.V. Intermediate College, Banda. The Committee of Management appointed Sri Prakash Dwivedi on 1.3.1986 on an adhoc basis up to the period 20.5.1986 or till such time as a regular appointee of the Commission was appointed, whichever was earlier. This appointment of Sri Prakash Dwivedi was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. The appointment of Sri Prakash Dwivedi came to an end on 20.5.1986, even though, no regular appointment was made by the Commission. According to Sri Prakash Dwivedi, when the college re-opened after the vacation, the Committee of Management requested him to continue and therefore Sri Prakash Dwivedi, continued to teach, but the salary was not paid. It transpires that the Committee of Management by a letter dated 16.8.1986 again sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools for making an adhoc appointment which was granted by an order dated 29.8.1986. On this ...
Tag this Judgment!