Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)95ITD169(Kol.)
The revenue is in appeal against the Id. CIT (A)'s order dated 20-11-2002 passed in the matter of an assessment made under section 147/143(3) dated 30-3-2001 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.Various grounds of appeal raised by the revenue revolve around the issue relating to the validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act by the assessing officer, which were cancelled by the Id. CIT (A) by holding that the re-opening of assessment by the assessing officer was bad in law as it was based on change of opinion on the same set of facts and law which were in existence at the time of the original assessment.In this case, the assessee had filed return of income on 30-11-1994 for the assessment year under consideration disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,71,21,790. The return was duly processed under section 143(1)(a) on a returned income. The case was taken up for scrutiny, and assessment was ultimately made under section 143(3) on 3-3-1997 determining...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Kol.)41
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the ld.CIT(A)'s order dated 20th November, 2002 passed in the matter of an assessment made under Section 147/143(3) dated 30-3-2001 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.2. Various grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue revolve around the issue relating to the validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act by the A.O., which were cancelled by the ld.CIT(A) by holding that the re-opening of assessment by the A.O. was bad in law as it was based on change of opinion on the same set of facts and law which were in existence at the time of the original assessment.3. Material facts, in brief, related to the issue in hand are as under :- In this case, the assessee had filed return of income on 30.11.94 for the assessment year under consideration disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,71,21,790/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1)(a) on a returned, income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(Kol.)710
1.These three appeals by the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 are directed against the orders of the CIT(A).These are being disposed of with this consolidated order.2. The main issue in these appeals is regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act in this case for all the three assessment years are bad in law. He argued that the reopening is based only on change of opinion and there is no subsequent information with the Department to reopen the completed assessments. He argued that the assessments for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 were, originally framed in scrutiny case under Section 143(3) of the Act wherein after due consideration, the AO allowed the claim of the assessee under Sections 80-I and 80HH of the Act. He argued that the notice of reassessment under Section 147 for the asst. yr. 1995-96 is dt. 25...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)93ITD615(Kol.)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the ld. CIT(A)'s order dated 25.2.2004 for the ssessment year 1999-2000. "(i) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing Agricultural Income as exempt Under Section 10(1) when he himself admitted that agricultural operation was carried out and the income represent share of profit from such agricultural income. (ii) For that the CIT(A) has also erred in directing to treat the agricultural income as income from other sources. (iii) For that the appellant begs leave to add, alter or amend any of grounds at the time of hearing.3. In the return of income, the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 1,17,368/-and claimed the same as exempted under section 10(1) of the Act. It was stated by the assessee before the A.O. that entire agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1,17,3687- was received as share profit from Balaji Farm House, allegedly a partnership firm, in which the assessee claimed to be a pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)284ITR104(Kol.)
1. This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), dt. 28th April, 2003, for the block period relevant to the asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1998-99 (upto 11th Nov., 1997) against which the assessee has filed cross-objection. Both, the appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a search under Section 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the residence and group concerns of the assessee on 11th Nov., 1997. The assessee vide his letter dt. 19th Feb., 1998, filed before the A.D.(Inv.), declared Rs. 50 lakhs as his undisclosed income for the block period and accordingly, filed his return for the block period on 23rd Oct., 1998, disclosing undisclosed income at Rs. 50 lakhs. However, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 75,63,300 vide order dt. 28th June, 1999 passed under Section 158BC(c)/143(3) of the IT Act and no appeal was preferred by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)93ITD177(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1997-98 is directed against the order of the CIT(A). In exercise of the powers vested under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), the President of the Tribunal, has constituted this Special Bench to decide the following question arising in the case of the present assessee : "When the loss in share dealing suffered by the assessee is more than the income of the assessee from other sources in the asst. yr. 1997-98, whether the assessee can be said to be having principal business of granting loans and advances and not hit by Explanation to Section 73 of the IT Act merely because in the preceding assessment years the assessee was not dealing in shares but was having interest income from loans and advances and rental income from leasing." 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "(1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in treating the speculation loss to be as business loss, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
1. This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 1997-98 is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals). In exercise of the powers vested Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T.), has constituted this Special Bench to decide the following question arising in the case of the present assessee :- "When the loss in share dealing suffered by the assessee is more than the income of the assessee from other sources in the assessment year 1997-98, whether the assessee can be said to be having principal business of granting loans and advances and not hit by Explanation to Section 73 of the I.T.Act merely because in the preceding assessment years the assessee was not dealing in shares but was having interest income from loans and advances and rental income from leasing." 2. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- (1) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)93ITD144(Kol.)
scrutiny of the case made by AOOn the AO issuing notice under section 143(2)(i), the assessee realised that interest and penalty on sales tax and firm s income-tax were wrongly claimed in the original return.Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return and withdrew its claim on the aforestated items. The AO completed assessment under section 143(3)(i) on these limited issues. Subsequently, the CIT invoked section 263 and directed the AO to make comprehensive scrutiny of the assessee s case and termed the AO s order passed under section 143(3)(i) as erroneous and prejudicial. Held: The grounds on which the assessment made by the AO under section 143(3)(i) had been set aside by the CIT were not permitted or covered while making an assessment on limited issues envisaged under section 143(3)(i) because on issuing notice under section 143(2)(i) only the order under section 143(3)(i) can be passed and not the order of comprehensive scrutiny as enumerated in section 143(3)(ii). Therefore, r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)93ITD152(Kol.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal for the asst. yr. 1998-99 against the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, the main issue is with regard to the exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act.2. In this case, the assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act. Originally, the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a).Thereafter, the same was taken up for scrutiny. The case of the assessee is that although the assessee-trust is running a school, but the assessee-trust was incurring various expenditure by providing aids and donations to different institutions which are mostly for non-education purposes. The list of such expenses has been incorporated in the assessment order. The assessee-trust has been earning profit by running the school. Therefore, the sole purpose of the trust is not education but for earning income. The assessee had incurred similar expenditure for non-education purpose from the asst. yrs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)93ITD110(Kol.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT (A) Central, II, Kolkata upholding the order Under Section 154/158BC(c) of the I.T. Act.2. In this case a search Under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 11^th March 1997. Thereafter by a notice dated 7.11.1997 issued Under Section 158BC(1) the A.O. directed the assessee to file return for the block period. This notice was served on the assessee on 11.11.97 & the assessee was required to file the return within 16 days from the date of service. Accordingly the block return was due for filing on 27.11.97. The assessee, however, filed his block return on 30^th July 1998 declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 88,00,000/-. The tax payable Under Section 113 thereon was Rs. 52,80,000/-. The block assessment Under Section 158BC(c) of the I.T. Act was thereafter passed on 24^th May 1999 assessing undisclosed income of Rs. 90,65,130/- and tax payable thereon was determined at Rs. 54,39,078/-. After giving credit to the taxes...
Tag this Judgment!