Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1999)69ITD104(Mad.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the AAC, Special Investigation Circle, Erode, dt. 28th February, 1997 passed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 for the block period "1st April, 1995 to 6th February, 1996".2. According to the AO, who passed the impugned assessment order dt.28th February, 1997, the status of the assessee is HUF (specified).Consequent to the search at the residence of the assessee and his business premises on 6th February, 1996, a notice under s. 158BC dt.25th July, 1996 was issued. A return in Form No. 2B showing 'nil' undisclosed income was filed on 8th January, 1997. All the investments have been considered in the hands of the assessee in his individual status. However the assessee has failed to file his returns of income for the asst. yrs. 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93 and 1993-94 as envisaged under s. 139. Hence the total income for the five years aggregating to Rs. 2,62,338 is treated as the undisclosed income of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
1. These two assessee's appeals arise out of the common order dt. 26th December, 1995, of the Dy. CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92, by which the Dy. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, by the AO. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is common, these appeals are consolidated together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is dealing in grams and cotton under the name and style of Dhanalakshmi Stores, had filed his returns of income for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 on 29th December, 1992, along with the audit reports under s. 44AB of the IT Act in response to notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, dt. 20th November, 1992, and served on the assessee on 20th November, 1992. In compliance with the summons under s. 131 a statement of the assessee was recorded. The AO was of the opinion after going through the facts of the case that the books of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
1. The assessee preferred appeals before this Tribunal challenging the reopening action as well as addition of interest income for both the assessment years. The appeals were disposed of by order dated 13-8-1997 confirming the reopening action as well as the addition of Rs. 1,08,000. The addition of Rs. 1,08,000 for each of the assessment years was confirmed by this Tribunal by observing as under in para 4 of the appeal order dated 13-8-1997 :- "We have examined the facts of this case as well as the arguments put forth by the rival parties. The question of jurisdiction and the other relevant objections have been properly dealt with and disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his orders appealed against. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Lakshmi Narayana Sadhani v. CIT 20 ITR 594 had occasion to deal with a similar case and held that the Assessing Officer under such circumstances has validly initiated proceedings for reassessment and it was not necessary to issue notice to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
13. Since there is a difference of opinion on the following point of difference between the two Members, the appeals are placed before the President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for being heard on the following point of difference by one or more of the other Members of the Appellate Tribunal : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the retrospective operation of section 40A(11) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1, 1980, affects the liability of the assessee-trust to wealth-tax ?" 1. While disposing of the appeals in W.T.A. Nos. 324, 325 and 326/Mds.of 1989, for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, a point of difference arose between the members of the Tribunal constituting the Bench which is identified and referred as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the retrospective operation of section 40A(11) of the Income-tax Act, 1061 with effect from April 1, 1980, affects the liability of the assessee-...
Tag this Judgment!