Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2008)113TT(JP.)at765
1. The assessee has filed this appeal for the asst. yr. 1999-00 against the order dt. 21st Dec, 2004 of the learned CIT(A).2. In ground No. 1 of the appeal, the assessee has disputed the legality of initiation of reassessment proceedings.3. I have heard the learned representatives of the parties and have perused the orders of the authorities below. I observe that the assessee filed his return of income on 16th Feb., 2001 along with the copy of balance sheet, P&L a/c. A copy of the said return along with balance sheet and P&L a/c is placed on record. In the said return, the assessee disclosed purchase of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000 (including registration expenses). He also showed agricultural income of Rs. 62,926. It is observed that the said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO has initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that the assessee purchased agricultural land by m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2008)116TT(JP.)at957
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A). The assessee has raised the following grounds: (i) For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing set off and carry forward of loss of earlier years amounting to Rs. 40,00,529 out of which a sum of Rs. 13,22,068 was to be set off against income of the year under consideration and remaining sum of Rs. 26,78,461 was to be carried forward. (ii) For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of set off and carry forward of loss and the same is contrary to facts and settled legal position. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that set off and carry forward of losses determined in earlier years have to be given effect to while computing the income as per provisions of the IT Act. (iii) For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the grounds regarding charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234D amounting to Rs. 1,86,331 and Rs. 1,382. (iv) For that interest under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2008)112ITD164(Pat.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the levy of penalty of Rs. 15,808 under Section 271B of the Act.2. The allegation of the AO was that the assessee ought to have got his accounts audited as required under Section 44AB of the Act because he has declared net profit at a rate less than 8 per cent whereas if an assessee is claiming profits and gains from civil construction at a rate less than 8 per cent then he ought to have got accounts audited as required under sub-s. (c) of Section 44AB. Since there was a failure on the part of the assessee to get the accounts audited, a penalty of Rs. 15,808 was levied. This was confirmed by the learned CIT(A).3. Against this, the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not a civil contractor as he is only using a mobile crane for loading and unloading iron (and) steel material from the railway siding. Therefore, the provisions of Section 44AB or Section 44AD would not be applicable in that cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2007)110TT(JP.)at366
1. In all these appeals filed by the Department as well as the assessees, the main issue involved is fraudulent withdrawals from Animal Husbandry Department (AMD), Government of Bihar, in the fodder scam. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief history of the case gathered from papers brought on record and submissions made is that Shri Dipesh Chandak was engaged in the criminal conspiracy of systematic fraudulent withdrawals of funds from the State Exchequer in connivance with the officials of AHD, Government of Bihar, and others. The modus operandi to facilitate this was that purchase orders were placed by AHD on the assessee for supply of feed to the Department. The assessee in turn would raise bogus bills of supply of feed on the Department without actually making them. In support of these supplies, the assessee would raise fictitious purchase vouchers as if purchases have actuall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2007)104ITD382(Pat.)
1. This appeal is by the assessee against the order of CIT passed Section 263 in respect of assessment year 2002-03. (1) For that the Learned CIT has erred in invoking powers Under Section 263 of the I.T. Act. (2) For that the learned CIT has erred in invoking powers Under Section 263 and setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer with a direction to make assessment afresh on the basis of show cause notice dated 19.10.2004 (copy enclosed) which was not even signed by him. (3) For that the learned CIT has gone beyond the allegations contained in notice dated 19.10.2004 while passing order Under Section 263 dated 24.11.2004 and thus has exceeded the jurisdiction by not limiting himself to the allegations in the show cause notice. (4) For that the order passed is violative of principles of equity and natural justice and as such fit to be quashed. (5) For that the learned CIT has erred in making adverse observation with regard to order Under Section 154 dated 27.1.03 in the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2004)84TT(JP.)at547
1. These appeals have been filed by the Department raising common issue for all the assessment years on the basis of CIT(A)'s order having allowed framing of the assessment under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act which grounds have been narrated hereinafter. We are taking these appeals together for the sake of convenience and gravity inasmuch as arising out of a common order of the learned CIT(A).2. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the learned CIT(A)-II, Patna, was not right in holding that the basic primes on which the assessment had been reopened in the aforesaid assessment years, i.e., the filing of case RC 55(A)/96-Patna against the assessee was non-existent. The CIT(A) had stated that since the name of the appellant did not figure as co-accused in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI in the above case the registration of case No. RC 55(A)/96-Patna cannot be the basis for initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. It is submitted that at the time of ini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2004)84TT(JP.)at570
1. It is a Departmental appeal against the order dt. 16th April, 1996 of the CIT(A). The assessment was reopened under Section 147 on 14th March, 1995. The reasons recorded by the AO are reproduced below : "In course of inquiry for asst. yr. 1994-95 following persons were found to be non-existent : transaction with certain other persons like Satpal Singh, Mazid Khan, etc. have been found to be non-genuine. I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Issue notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. Though a list of sundry creditors were disclosed in the return of the income but notice under Section 148 is being issued in View of the enquiries which revealed that transactions with the abovementioned sundry creditors were non-genuine or bogus or does not represent correct nature of transaction and the notice is being issued in view of this new facts and fresh information and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Phoolchand Bagranglal v....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2004)90ITD90(Pat.)
1. The appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 were heard by Division Bench at Patna.As a result of difference of opinion of the two Members of the Bench, the Hon'ble President has nominated me as Third Member for a decision in regard to the point of difference between the Ld. Members. The following points have been identified in respect of which there is difference of opinion between the ld. Members:- (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred to hold that reopening of the assessment Under Section 147 of the I.T. Act is unjustified and bad in law? (2) Whether on the basis of material collected for the asstt. year 1994-95 that certain creditors were bogus reopening of the assessment for the asstt. year 1993-94 can be made Under Section 147 of the I.T. Act? 2. Parties have been heard and record perused. In order to recapitulate, the relevant facts may be reiterated. The assessee is engaged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (2004)91ITD198(Pat.)
1. The appeals of the Revenue for the assessment year 1987-88 to 1989-90 had come up for decision before the Patna Division Bench.However, since there was a difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench, I was nominated by the Hon'ble President as Third Member for a decision in regard to the point of dispute in these appeals of the Revenue.2. The Ld. Members of the Division Bench have identified the point of dispute separately as under:- "Whether registration of a case with the CBI, on the allegation that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 7998500/- from AHD, Govt. of Bihar, without making any supplies and obtaining accommodation entries of purchases against commission and surrounding circumstances, would be sufficient for an AO to form an opinion that on account of non-disclosure of material facts fully and truly income has escaped assessment?" "Whether on the basis of information available on account of registration of charge-sheet by the CBI in the case of assessee's relat...
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!