Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD87(Pat.)
1. The assessee has three grievances in this appeal which are as under :- 1. Confirmation of a sum of Rs. 87,000 as income from undisclosed sources under section 68 of the Act. 2. Retention of a sum of Rs. 15,000 as against Rs. 20,800 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of low withdrawal for household expenses.2. As regards the third grievance it was brought to the notice of the assessee's counsel that there is no decision whatsoever by the Appellate Commissioner (A/C) and, therefore, this ground does not arise from out of the impugned order of the A/C. However, after some discussion it was decided that instead of sending the matter back to the A/C for rendering a decision on the ground taken in the first appeal regarding levy of interest under section 217, we direct the Assessing Officer to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before charging interest under section 217. The third ground is disposed off accordingly. The assessee maintains personal a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD63(Pat.)
1. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs. 39,000 under section 68 of the Act and the sum of Rs. 12,545 being interest on the cash credits.2. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that loans/cash credits in the names of below given three persons were not genuine and the assessee as well as the loan creditors failed to establish the validity of the source of the creditworthiness :-Gokul Prasad Sahu Rs. 13,000Govind Prasad Sahu Rs. 11,000Preveen Kumar Jain Sahu Rs. 15,000 3. The assessee's case was that the loans were obtained from those three persons through account payee cheques and all the three creditors were income-tax assessees. As such, the identity and the creditworthiness of those three lenders remained established. The assessee also submitted before the Appellate Commissioner in first appeal that the two out of three creditors were summoned by the Assessing Officer and their oath statements...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1998)64ITD37(Pat.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and the sole grievance relates to an order of the CIT (Appeals) confirming an addition of Rs. 78,000 to the assessee's income.2. The assessee is an individual and had income from salary as well as house property. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 3,15,000 in the purchase and construction of a house property in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90. The source of investment was stated to be, inter alia, loan from the assessee's wife, Smt. Swapna Mishra. She filed an affidavit confirming the advance of loan and stated that it was given by cheque. According to the assessment order, the source of income was stated to be salary Rs. 1,500 per month from teaching in Nursery School since 1985 and accumulation of Rs. 20,000 out of past home savings and tuition fees. The school was closed in the year 1988 and by that time she had accumulated Rs. 80,000. A copy of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2004)91ITD173(Pat.)
1. I find it convenient to pass a consolidated order in the case of Alok Nursing Home and two persons, namely, Dr. Narendra Prasad and Dr.(Mrs.) Leela Prasad associated with the same association. These appeals have come up for hearing before me as Third Member as a result of difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Division Bench who originally heard these appeals.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that Dr. Narendra Prasad is a Doctor by profession. His wife Dr. (Mrs.) Leela Prasad is a doctor (PHD) by virtue of educational qualification. She is in the teaching profession and employed as a Professor in a teaching college. A building was constructed at Khazanchi Road, Patna which was originally shown as exclusively belonging to Dr. (Mrs.) Leela Prasad. There was a search operation Under Section 132 of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the residential premises of Dr. Narendra Prasad/ Dr. (Mrs.) Leela Prasad and at Alok Nursing Home. After the search, Dr. Narendra Prasad and Dr.(Mrs.) L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2004)84TT(JP.)at592
1. All these five appeals have been filed by the Revenue and are decided by this common order as the same issue is involved.2. The Settlement Commission had passed an order under Section 245D(1) of the IT Act in the case of Dr. Narendra Prasad on 27th Oct., 1987, for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1984-85. The Authorised Representative of the assessee refers to para 8.6 of the order. The Settlement Commission had accepted both Dr. Narendra Prasad and Dr. (Mrs.) Leela Prasad as 50:50 owner of the nursing home in respect of the rental income as well as other income shown from the nursing home for the three assessment years, i.e., 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. The Authorised Representative of the assessee wants this decision of the Settlement Commission to be followed in subsequent years also. But it is well-settled that the decision of the Settlement Commission is binding and final only for the years covered by that decision. In other years the facts considered by the Settlement Commission m...
Tag this Judgment!