Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
1. The assessee has taken 11 grounds in this appeal. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 11 are general and do not require any decision thereon. In ground Nos. 9 and 10, the assessee has a grievance that the CIT(A) has not given any finding or decision in respect of disputes raised in ground Nos. 12 and 13 in the first appeal before him. We have examined the impugned order as well as the grounds of appeal taken in the first appeal before the CIT(A) and we are convinced that the grievance of the assessee in this appeal in ground Nos. 9 and 10 is well taken. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A), with the direction to rehear the assessee and give his finding and decision in respect of disputes raised before him in ground Nos. 12 and 13. We order and direct accordingly.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee states that the CIT(A), while passing the appellate order, has not given any comment in respect of the ground Nos. 1, 9 and 10. In this regard, we have read the ground Nos. 1, 9 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD29(Pat.)
18. As we differ in our views in the above case, we request the President to kindly refer the matter to the Third Member on the following points : (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be validly levied in law on legal heirs of the deceased, when the return of income was filed by the deceased during his life time (2) If so, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, levied on the legal heir of the deceased, should be upheld, or cancelled on merit (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the son and one of the legal representatives of the deceased and who is deemed as an assessee as per section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be penalised under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the alleged offence by the deceased in concealing the true income chargeable to tax (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1998)65ITD24(Pat.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in respect of assessment year 1992-93. The assessee derives income from letting out godown and premises. It filed return in the status of a firm claiming that it carried on business. Up to the assessment year 1991-92 it carried on business in iron goods. It also claimed the rental income as business income. For the assessment year 1992-93, covered under the present appeal, also it claimed in the return that it carried on business of servicing. The income from godowns and premises was claimed to be comprised of rent plus service charges. The service charges were claimed as business income. The total receipts from service charges during the year were Rs. 23,976 and the total expenses incurred for the same were Rs. 18,656. The balance shown was as income from business.Besides, staff salary of Rs. 18,156 was combined for collection as well as service work.2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) did not accept the claim. He held that the receipts from the servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD257(Pat.)
1. The decision of the Appellate Commissioner (A/C) in the impugned order is challenged in this appeal by the assessee. Various issues culled out from the grounds taken and which have arisen for our consideration are : (a) Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure of the assessee in filing return disclosing investment made during the previous year in the construction of the Hotel Building (b) Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 144 of the Act and completing the assessment ex parte (c) Whether the assessment is barred by limitation as provided in section 153 of the Act (d) Whether, on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), the Assessing Officer can make addition under section 69 as income from undisclosed sources towards unexplained investment in the construction of the hotel building on the basis of the DVO's report (e) Whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD144(Pat.)
1. These two appeals involving a common issue are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. Both the sides agreed that essential facts were similar in the two cases. We will, therefore, discuss facts in the case of Shri Abhay Kumar Shroff (I.T.A. No.95/Pat./1993) and the decision will be equally applicable in the case of Late Sri Hanuman Prasad Shroff through legal heirs.2. The assessee, Shri Abhay Kumar Shroff is an individual and a member of the HUF called 'Hanuman Prasad Abhay Kumar'. The HUF purchased a property called Diamond Plaza for Rs. 7,60,000 and leased it to the assessee on 5-3-1987 on a rent of Rs. 2,185 per month for five years and Rs. 2,665 for the next five years. The assessee, thereafter, sub- let the premises to the Union Bank of India or rent on Rs. 2,28,060 per year. According to the assessment order, it was let out on 20-4- 1987 but according to the ld. counsel for the assessee, before us, the date should be 10-4-1987. However, the differenc...
Tag this Judgment!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)63ITD49(Pat.)
1. The assessee in this appeal has two grievances one regarding confirmation of addition of Rs. 10,000 in labour payment account and the other in respect of confirmation of an amount of Rs. 1,22,077 added under section 40A(3) of the Act representing cash payments made to M/s.STP Ltd. Dhanbad in respect of supplies made under various bills. The assessee's case in respect of second grievance was that M/s STP Ltd. with its Head Office at Calcutta and Union Office at Dhanbad did not have any bank account at Dhanbad and, therefore, the assessee made payments in cash for immediate business purposes and payment by bank demand draft or by cheque would have delayed the business transaction resulting in losses to the assessee. According to the assessee M/s. STP Ltd. was an income-tax assessee and payments to that concern were not doubted. Moreover on account of unavoidable and unexceptional circumstances, cash payments exceeded Rs. 2500 were made and the assessee came within the benevolence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD237(Pat.)
1. These two appeals filed by the Department are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The appeals have been filed against the orders of the CIT(A) cancelling penalties of Rs. 56,072 and Rs. 74,951 for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 respectively, levied under section 271B of the Act.3. According to the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, the audit report under that section was due to be prepared by 31-7-87 for assessment year 1987-88. However, it was actually signed on 2-8-88 and was, thus, delayed. Similarly, the audit report for assessment year 1988-89 was due to be prepared by 31-7-88 but the report was actually signed on 20-10-89. It was thus again delayed. Penalty proceedings were commenced by the Assessing Officer for both the years, in response to which replies were filed stating that the accounts could not be audited in due time due to illness of the assessee's Authorised Representative, who was also employed as auditor, and because the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD1(Pat.)
1. These are cross-appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue. We shall first take up assessee's appeal.2. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 state that the Appellate Commissioner (A/C) erred in confirming the deposit by Smt. Girja Devi of a sum of Rs. 18,000 treating it as assessee's income and also disallowing the interest amount of Rs. 1,828 paid to that lady on her loan account.3. The assessee obtained a loan from Smt. Girja Devi amounting to Rs. 18,000. No confirmation letter from this lady was filed. However, the assessee explained that she obtained loans from two different persons through account payee cheques which were deposited by her in her bank account and then the cheque was issued to the assessee. It was stated before the AO that both the lenders of Smt. Girja Devi were assessed to tax. Explanation was disbelieved and the amount of Rs. 18,000 was added to the assessee's income under s. 68 of the Act at the same time adding Rs. 1,828, interest payable by the assessee in res...
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!