Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Ahd.)481
1. These cross-appeals filed both by the Revenue and the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1993-94, Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, these are being decided by a single order for the sake of convenience. The facts and observations for different years noticed by the lower authorities are as under : 2. First, we take up ITA Nos. 4401 (by assessee) and 4324/Ahd/1995 (by the Revenue) for asst. yr. 1988-89. The AO issued notice under Section 148 of the IT Act as the assessee has not filed the return of income.The assessee derives income from jeep hiring to ONGG. The assessee filed return of income showing total income of Rs. 1,18,965. The return of income filed by the assessee is not accompanied with the P&L a/c and balance sheet. The assessee submitted return of income along with the following remarks : During the assessment proceedings it has been noticed by the AO that the assessee has shown the gross amount received...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2005)92TTJ(Ahd.)1126
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the GIT(A), dt. 2nd May, 1997, for asst. yr. 1994-95.2. The ground raised in this appeal pertains to addition of Rs. 27,39,410 being purchases in cash from unaccounted sources. The business of the assessee is trading of iron and steel on wholesale basis. The assessee has shown total sales of Rs. 28,17,207 and disclosed loss of Rs. 94,740. The calculation of GP comes to 3.36 per cent. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed purchases of Rs. 27,39,407 from 17 different parties. The AO noticed that three parties were not found at the address given by the assessee, namely, M/s Ansu Associates, Rolex Enterprises and Konica Steel. The AO asked to produce these parties but the same could not be produced before the AO. The AO has also issued summons under Section 131 to six parties which were returned by the postal authority with the remark "not known". In case of Prapti Corpn., summons issued was served but nobody remain...
Tag this Judgment!