Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2008)116TTJJab741
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 16th Sept., 2004.2. The first ground relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 75,000. The assessee has shown agricultural income at Rs. 2,54,414. It was submitted that the assessee was having 21 acres of agricultural income (sic-land) which was irrigated and from which he got wheat, gram and soyabean. The assessee filed the details of ownership, Khasra Khatoni, etc. The AO estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 1,79,414 and treated Rs. 75,000 to be the income from other sources. When the matter went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: I have gone through the records, the written submission of the learned Authorised Representative and the arguments put forward before me. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Authorised Representative. The estimate of agricultural income made by the AO is without any basis. In S. Sarabhaiah Shetty & Sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2008)114TTJJab860
1. This miscellaneous application is filed by the assessee for recalling the order of the Tribunal dated 9-8-2007 contending, inter alia, that these, appeals were posted for hearing on 21-5-2007 in its regular course. On that date, the assessee's representative had made an application for adjournment stating that he is going abroad and he is not able to present himself on the date of hearing on 21-5-2007 requesting for adjournment on that date. On going through the adjournment application filed by the assessee and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the matter is to be heard on 25-5-2007. Accordingly, the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee as well as the assessee's representative. On 25-5-2007, it is noticed by the Tribunal that the representative of the assessee has made an application dated 23-5-2007 received by the Registry on 24-5-2007 prayed for further adjournment on the ground that after completion of his tou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2007)111TTJJab149
1. By means of present application assessee seeks to get recalled order of the Tribunal Under Section 254(2) in MA No. 48/Jab/2005 dt.19.06.2006 passed in misc. application filed by the revenue (in ITA No.252/Jab/2003) on the ground that the MA was fixed for hearing on 05.05.2006 which was attended by the assessee but was not heard by the Tribunal but order has: been passed on 15.06.2005 and other pleas have been raised on merits and it has been requested for recalling the order passed Under Section 254(2).2. The application of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 25.05.2007 and assessee's counsel Shri K. Kumar vide application dt. 24.05.2007 has submitted that in view of resolution passed by Tax Bar Association, Jabalpur he shal not be able to appear on 25.05.2007 and by filing photocopy of the resolution dt. 23.05.2007, by Virtue of which Bar members have resolved not to appear before the Bench and therefore case may be adjourned. Another application dt. 25.05.2007 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT (A) dated 26.4.1999 wherein he has deleted the addition of Rs. 22,30,000 The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,30,000 made by the AO as income from undisclosed sources.2. Originally the assessment was completed on Sri Satyapal Wassan.Thereafter legal heir Sri Naresh Wassan was substituted on the death of Sri Satyapal Wassan. It was reported that Sri Naresh Wassan had also expired on 5.10.2006. Thereafter Smt. Shraddha Wassan has been taken as legal heir on recor.3. The facts of the case are that the business and residential premises of Sri Satypal Wassan was searched in April, 1995. During the course of the search operations, various documents and books of accounts were seized. The impugned addition of Rs. 22,30,000 was based on a loose paper No. 7 of Annexure A-1/1-4 which was seized from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed by the order passed by Ld.Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Jabalpur, dated 4-9-2006, relevant to assessment year 2001-02, wherein following three grounds have been raised. 1. That the order of the CIT (Appeals) in upholding the assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, erroneous and unjustified. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals)-Il was erroenous and unjustified while upholding that the provisions of Section 44AD of Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable in the Appellant's case. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the C.I.T. (Appeals) is totally unjustified in not relying the Book result and upholding the application of 8% of net profit on gross receipts.2. The facts indicate that the business of the assessee as noted by Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) is buying plots, constructing residential h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2007)109TTJJab657
1. These cross-appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), dt. 2nd Feb., 2005 for the asst. yr. 2001-02. Since facts are identical and grounds are interconnected, therefore, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Briefly stated facts, of the case are that the assessee an AOP derives income as a liquor contractor. The return was filed showing a loss of Rs. 7,475. During the course of assessment, it was found by the AO that the assessee constituted a firm as per partnership deed dt.31st March, 2000 and deposited earnest money at Rs. 54,60,000. It was also found that the partners have made capital investment namely, S/Sri Nandlal Pandey Rs. 24,60,000, Parmanand Soni Rs. 5,00,000, Chitrabhan Singh Rs. 10,00,000. Prakashchand Madan Rs. 50,000, Arun Singh Rs. 5,00,000, Nevandram Ahuja Rs. 10,00,000, Prakashchand Ahuja Rs. 5,00,000, Anil Kumar Pathak Rs. 5,00,000 and Jairamdas Malkani Rs. 5,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2007)107TTJJab149
1. This appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee arise out of the order passed by learned CIT(A), Jabalpur dt. 20th Sept., 2002 relevant to asst. yr. 1993-94.2. In the appeal of the Revenue, the following effective grounds have been raised: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in: 1. Holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2. Holding that the reopening of assessment was not valid since there was no proper service of notice, especially ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in R.L. Narang v. CIT . 3. Holding that the claim of the assessee of Rs. 12.17 lakhs was revenue expenditure as against capital expenditure as held by the AO, especially ignoring the decision in the case of Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT , CIT v. Vummidi Bangaru 4. In allowing deduction under Section 80-I to the assessee without deducting carry forwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2007)106TTJJab234
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-2 Bilaspur, dt. 7th Feb., 1996 relevant to asst. yr.1992-93 wherein following single effective ground has been raised-- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961 including the income disclosed under Section 132 (4) of the IT Act, 1961.2. This appeal was earlier decided by this Bench vide order dt. 22nd Sept., 2000 which came to be recalled by the order of this Bench on the application of the assessee vide order dt. 10th Oct., 2005.3. The facts indicate that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80-I after including the amount of Rs. 4 lacs disclosed in the return. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the deduction was available in respect of profit and gain derived from the industrial undertaking and such profit and gain, as per P&L a/c, were only to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2006)103TTJJab536
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) Jabalpur, dt. 20th March, 1998 relevant to asst. yr.1992-93 in which following one effective ground has been raised- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT erred in: (a) cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271D at Rs. 1,20,700 for violation of Section 269SS, (b) without considering the fact that there is no exception for violation of Section 269SS 2. The facts indicate that the assessee-company runs a hospital and derives income from charges received on account of consultation, radiology, pathology, etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee-company had accepted loans/deposits in cash of Rs. 20,000 or more from the following persons-Shri Hemchand Vira 24,241Smt. Dayalaxmi 23,233Shri Abhay Kankane 22,350Miss Ann Marya Thomas 20,000Shri Ashish Dhirwani 20,000Shri Jitendra Shrivastava 22,380 _____________ 3. The AO while obser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Reported in : (2007)109ITD275Jab
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-I, Jabalpur, dt. 17th March, 2005 relevant to asst. yr.1991-92 whereby confirmation of penalty of Rs. 60,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) has been challenged.2. This appeal was earlier treated as unadmitted and as such was dismissed vide order dt. 2nd Nov., 2005 and on the application of the assessee said order of the Tribunal was recalled vide order dt. 31st March, 2006.3. The assessee in this case is found to have paid less fee in as much as challans of Rs. 500 was enclosed with the memo of appeal and since the amount of the Tribunal fee paid was less than the prescribed amount of Rs. 4,539, so a defect memo was issued to the assessee about short payment of Rs. 4,039 and in response thereto, the assessee asserted in the written communication that his case falls under Section 253(6)(d) of the Act as the appeal is against the penalty and not against the quantum, so the fee of Rs. 500 has rightly b...
Tag this Judgment!