Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)57ITD512(Kol.)
1. this is an appeal by the assessee and is directed against the order of the cit(a) sustaining the penalty of rs. 68,775 imposed under section 271 (1)(c) of the income-tax act.2. the assessee is a public limited company which came into existence during the year of account. it made a public issue of share capital and received contributions on account of share application money as well as allotment money. in the assessment proceedings the ito noticed that the assessee received as share subscription a sum of rs. 55,22,250. the assessee furnished a complete list of shareholders and also a copy of the respective accounts maintained by its bankers, namely, canara bank and allahabad bank through whom the amount was collected. the ito scrutinised the list and observed that a sum of rs. 1,23,000 was not received by means of account payee cheques but was received in cash. he called upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the deposit in response to which the assessee contended that since the number of shareholders was more than 2200 it would not be possible for the company to produce confirmation from all of them. subsequently, the assessee was able to furnish list of confirmation from most of the shareholders who deposited the money by means of cheques. in respect of the amount of rs. 1,23,000 deposited in cash, the assessee was not able to furnish any confirmation but it was able to furnish the names of the subscribers, their addresses and the number of shares .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1995)54ITD425(Kol.)
1. the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the export of garments. in this appeal we are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90 corresponding to the accounting year ended on 31-3-1989.2. during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that there was no export of garments during the year and that the receipts of the assessee consisted of duty draw back and sale of r.e.p.licence received against earlier exports. in the course of scrutiny of the accounts he found that the assessee had not taken into account the amount of rs. 7,25,854 received by the assessee as sale proceeds of the export quota, while computing the taxable income. the assessee contended that the sale proceeds represented capital receipt since the export licence which was sold related to the capital structure or the very frame work of the business. it was also pointed out that the assessee did not deal in export licences and it was no part of its business to purchase and sell or in any manner deal in export licences.according to the assessee the export licence was an intangible asset of capital nature.3. the assessing officer did not accept the assessee's contentions. he was of the view that the export entitlement was received in the course of the assessee's regular business and therefore, the sale proceeds represented trading receipts and consequently a part of the assessee's income. he also relied on the provisions of section 28(iiia) inserted by the finance act, 1990 with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)61ITD183Cal
1. these two cross appeals were directed against the order of the cit(a)-vii, calcutta and they relate to the assessment year 1989-90.the issue involved in the assessee's appeal as well as in the department's appeal is common and so we proceed to dispose of the appeals together, for the sake of convenience.2. the assessee is a company earning interest income and also income from hire charges of trailors and trucks. the assessee was consistently following the mercantile system of accounting. the accounting year in the immediately preceding assessment year ended on 30-6-1987.3. for the assessment year 1989-90, in view of the change in the law, the assessee-company had closed its books of account on 31-3-1989 and the aforesaid previous year consisted of 21 months. as per the system hitherto followed by the assessee, the books of accounts were closed as on 30-6-1988 (i.e., from 1-7-1987). due to change in the previous year the books of accounts were ultimately closed on 31-3-1989. in the course of carrying on its activities, assessee lent cash to several persons and in turn, earned interest income. however, in respect of some of the debtors, the company found that the receipt of principal itself is in doubt and hence the question of receiving interest may be a remote chance. since the company was following mercantile system, interest accrued as on 30-6-1988 was shown in the books. however, on 21-12-1988 (before the end of the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1989 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)61ITD1(Kol.)
1. these appeals are instituted by the assessee against the order of the cit(a) for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1985-86 on the common grounds that the cit(a) erred in confirming the imposition of penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the it act, 1961 without going through the facts of the case when the assessee did not have any mens rea to conceal the income and, therefore, the imposition of penalty is bad in law. since common issues and common grounds are involved in these appeals, they are decided and disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. in this case although the original assessment was completed the assessing officer (ao) subsequently found that the assessee received rs. 5,664, rs. 6,008 rs. 8,981, rs. 11,062, rs. 3,640, rs. 21,840 and rs. 15,950 for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1985-86 respectively, as royalty from calcutta book house (in short 'cbh') during the previous years relevant to these assessment years. the ao, therefore, reopened the assessments under s. 147 as the assessee did not disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for his assessments and the assessments were completed under s. 143(3)/147 after the returns of income in response to notices under s. 148 were filed and the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were duly initiated. a show-cause notice under s. 271(1)(c)/274 was served on the assessee and the assessee submitted a written explanation wherein it is stated that the assessee received royalty money from two companies - (i) book .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)65ITD214(Kol.)
1 to 4. [these paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. grounds numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 relate to grievance of the assessee that the assessment is barred by limitation under section 153(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961 and the cit (appeals) was wrong in giving a finding that the assessment order was passed within the time prescribed under the statute. in order to appreciate the facts more clearly we reproduce the grounds hereunder : "3. that the cit (appeals)-vi should have held that the assessment order is barred by limitation inasmuch as per the provisions of section 153(1)(c) of the income-tax act, the assessing officer has to pass the order within one year from the date of filing of the revised return; 4. that the learned cit (appeals)-vi failed to appreciate that the revised return having been filed by the appellant on 27-3-1989 was not a valid revised return in view of the hon'ble rajasthan high court (decision) in the case of vimalchand v. cit [1985] 155 itr 593 and kerala high court in the case of eapen joseph v. cit [1987] 168 itr 26 and, hence, no valued assessment order could be passed; 5. that the learned cit (appeals)-vi has further wrong in not giving any finding that the assessment order alleged to have been passed on 27-3-1990 was not passed within the time allowed under the statute; 6. that without prejudice to above, the cit (appeals)-vi should have held that although the order is alleged to have been passed on 27-3-1990, it was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)65ITD157(Kol.)
1. this appeal is instituted by the revenue against the order of the cit(a) for the asst. yr. 1984-85 on the following grounds : 1. "that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned cit(a)-vi, calcutta, did not have jurisdiction to pass the order under s. 154. 2. that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned cit(a)-vi, calcutta, there could be no apparent mistake for rectification under s. 154." 2. in brief, the facts of the case are that in this case the original assessment was finalised under s. 143(3) by the ao on 11th march, 1988, on a total income of rs. 18,33,260 as against the returned income of rs. 83,150. the assessee filed appeal before the cit(a) and disputed all the additions in the grounds. when the appeal was fixed for hearing the assessee in response to the notice of hearing, addressed a letter dt. 18th march, 1989, to the cit(a) stating therein that as per guidelines of the cbdt the assessee has filed revised return and has paid tax in order to settle the dispute in assessment and is awaiting order of the cit(a) accepting the settlement of tax liability. the assessee also requested the cit(a) in that letter to adjourn the hearing on the ground that once the order of the cit is received the assessee may consider to withdraw the appeal. the cit(a) observed that vide petition dt. 27th december, 1988, filed before the cit for settlement of tax liability, the assessee has declared rs. 4,25,000 as additional income for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)80ITD69(Kol.)
1. this revenue's appeal is directed against the order dt. 31st july, 1996 passed by the learned cit(a)-v, calcutta, in the matter of assessment order under section 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1992-93.solitary grievance of the revenue is against cit(a)'s 'deleting the addition of rs. 45,28,754 made under section 69d on account of borrowal made by the assesses in cash on bundles'.2. briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a calcutta-based firm and owns a tea garden at rosekandi in cachar district of assam. during the relevant previous year, the assessee had an arrangement with one m/s batdeodas satya narayan (hereinafter referred to as the local moneylender), which had an office at a location near assessee's tea garden i.e., at janlgang bazar in silchar, and under this arrangement the tea garden office of the firm could borrow money in cash from the local moneylender for meeting local expenses such as labour payments etc. but immediately upon doing so, the local office would issue internal instructions to the head office to make the payment of the borrowed sum directly to the moneylender. as a matter of fact, the money was given by the moneylender in exchange of such internal payment instructions issued by the local office to the head office. as a part of this arrangement, head office of the assessee-firm was making instructed payments to the moneylender, by crossed cheques, usually within 2-3 days of such payment instruction being issued by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)80ITD25Cal
1. these two appeals filed by the department are against to separate orders of cit(a) dt. 24th aug., 2000 deleting the penalty imposed under section 221 for not depositing in time the taxes deducted at source under section 193 and 194a respectively for the financial year 1996-97.2. the issues involved in these two appeals are common and as such, the appeals were heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.3. the ground taken by the department in these two appeals is that the cit(a) erred in cancelling the penalty under section 221 of the act on the ground that interest was paid by the assessee.4. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deducted a same of rs. 38,79,749 on payments made by way of interest on securities under section 193 of the act and a sum of rs. 98,94,225 from the amount paid by way of interest other than interest on securities under section 194a for the period ending on 31st march, 1997. the assessee actually deposited the said sum to the credit of the central government on 27th june, 1997 and as such, there was a delay of 27 days in depositing the amount to the central government a/c. for failure on the part of the assessee to pay the amount of tax deducted at source under sections 193 and 194a within the time allowed under the statute, the ao had initiated on 18th may, 1999 penalty proceedings under section 221 of the act asking the assessee as to why penalty should not be levied fixing the case on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)84ITD698Cal
1. these are the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89 against the consolidated order of the ld. cit(a) dated 28-12-1999. as common points of disputes arc involved in these cases, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. the original returns for the assessment years under appeal were filed by the assessee on 18-2-1987, 30-5-1988 and 2-8-1989 respectively. thereafter a revised return was filed for the assessment year 1986-87 on 27-4-1988. the assessments were framed by the a.o.under section 143(3) of the act on 15-3-1989 and 22-12-1989 for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 at rs. 1,75,240 and rs. 2,050 respectively. for assessment year 1988-89, the a.o. completed the assessment under section 143(1) of the act on 8-3-1990 whereby he did not allow carry forward of loss of rs. 38,648. it appears from the record that the assessee went in appeal before the cit(a) for assessment year 1986-87, who reduced the assessed income to rs. 1,09,960. thereafter notices under section 148 were issued on 13-8-1991 for assessment year 1986-87 and on 26-6-1991 for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 on the ground that the cost of construction of the hotel building was not properly shown by the assessee. the assessee appeared before the a.o. and submitted that the report of the d.v.o.cannot be relied upon for the purpose of computing the cost of construction. d.v.o.'s report is for the entire building, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Kol.)1030
1. this appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1995-96 is directed against the order of the cit(a). the appeal is barred by limitation by 3 days and the assessee has filed a condonation application with a request to condone the delay in presenting the appeal before the tribunal. the counsel for the assessee-submitted that, in fact, the appeal in the prescribed form no. 36 was filed in time on the last day of filing of the appeal before the tribunal. however, due to some mistake in computer printing, 1-2 lines at bottom of the page of form no. 36 were not printed and, therefore, the assessee filed a revised form no. 36 with enclosures before the tribunal on 30th nov., 2004, and the delay may be condoned. the learned departmental representative has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. he stated that the assessee should have taken due precautions in filing the correct form no. 36 before the tribunal. we have considered the rival submissions. considering the fact that originally the appeal memo on form no. 36 was filed in time and the revised form no. 36 was filed the very next day, i.e., on 30th nov., 2004, the delay in filing the present appeal before the tribunal is condoned.2. the only issue in this appeal is regarding the validity of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the act on the assessee.3. the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a return declaring net loss of rs. 71,73,023 and was assessed at ' .....
Tag this Judgment!