Guwahati Court October 1989 Judgments

income-tax Officer Vs. Akshay Bhandar.

Court: Guwahati

Per Egbert Singh, A. M. - The appeal is by the revenue which is directed against the order of the CIT (A) by which he has deleted Rs. 32,208 being penalty imposed by the ITO under section 271(1)(c).2. In the assessment order, the ITO has narrated the various circumstances of the case and the facts along with the materials to show that the assessee has shown to have made cash receipts of Rs. 24,402 from M/s Biswas Bros. of Dharmanagar, Tripura, on 15-3-1988 which was disclosed as cash sales. On verification, the ITO obtained information from the ITO, Agartala, assessing M/s Biswas Bros. of Dharmanagar that the said firm through Shri P. K. Biswas, Managing Partner, had denied to have made payment in cash on 15-3-1977 on account of purchase of 45 bundles of G. I. sheets from this assessee. Such information was furnished to the assessee to enable the assessee to produce any material to support the claim that there was cash sales on 15-3-1977 to the abovementioned Dharmanagar party. The as...

income-tax Officer Vs. Gauri Kanta Kalita

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1990)32ITD79(Gau.)

1. The first two appeals are by the revenue and the other two appeals are by the assessee. All relate to the consolidated order of the AAC by which he has partly sustained the order of the ITO. Briefly speaking, the facts and the background of the case are as under.2. For the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the assessing officer discussed the facts in details. For the assessment year 1980-81, the return was filed on 1-10-1980 which was assessed under Section 143(1).Later on, the ITO had information that the firm M/s. Garui Kanta Kalita & Co. had income from Huller Rice Mill which was in the earlier years shown as the assessee's income in his individual capacity. The assessing officer completed that assessment at nil observing that the income actually belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity.The ITO, therefore, took action under Section 147(a) and issued notice under Section 148. There was no response from the assessee and no return was filed. The ITO issued notice...