Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer vs Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja. on 3 August, 1995
10. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. It is quite evident
from the orders of the authorities below that some of the contents of the
impugned seized document tallied with the regular account books of the
assessee. Quite clearly, the assessee was expected to explain the contents of
the document. The explanation rendered by the assessee that it was only rough
notings is too general and vague, and, therefore, considering the entire gamut of
facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the
amount of Rs 3,78,800/- as unrecorded sales. However, the alternative plea of
the assessee that only the profit element should be assessed instead of the
gross amount of sale, is acceptable. There is no justification to treat the gross
amount of sale as income, and this is in line with the decisions of our co-ordinate
Benches in the cases of Ajinkya Electromelt (P) Ltd. (supra) and Gurubachhan
Singh J. Juneja (supra). Thus, we delete the addition of Rs 3,64,974/- enhanced
by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and retain the addition of Rs
13,826/- made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order of the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is
directed to retain an addition of Rs 13,826/- only. Thus, on this Ground assessee
partly succeeds.
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Premier Distilleries Ltd., ... vs Dcit, Pondicherry on 14 June, 2018
10. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. It is quite evident
from the orders of the authorities below that some of the contents of the
impugned seized document tallied with the regular account books of the
assessee. Quite clearly, the assessee was expected to explain the contents of
the document. The explanation rendered by the assessee that it was only rough
notings is too general and vague, and, therefore, considering the entire gamut of
facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the
amount of Rs 3,78,800/- as unrecorded sales. However, the alternative plea of
the assessee that only the profit element should be assessed instead of the
gross amount of sale, is acceptable. There is no justification to treat the gross
amount of sale as income, and this is in line with the decisions of our co-ordinate
Benches in the cases of Ajinkya Electromelt (P) Ltd. (supra) and Gurubachhan
Singh J. Juneja (supra). Thus, we delete the addition of Rs 3,64,974/- enhanced
by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and retain the addition of Rs
13,826/- made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order of the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is
directed to retain an addition of Rs 13,826/- only. Thus, on this Ground assessee
partly succeeds.
Shirish Madhukar Dalvi vs Assistant Commr.Of Income Tax . on 3 November, 2015
"2.3 We further hold that merely because it was mentioned in the notice issued u/s
158BC to file return within 15 days of the receipt would not render the notice ab inito void,
but is a procedural irregularity liable to be cured. The assessee has not been able to
show any serious and material prejudice caused to the assessee. The search warrant
notice u/s 158BC and notice u/s 142(1) issued in the name of L/R of Brijmohan Bansal
without specifying particular names of legal representatives also does not make the
proceedings as void ab initio so that the assessment order is to be cancelled as without
jurisdiction. The CIT(A) has decided the issue rightly in the light of several decisions
referred to by him in his order. The Hon'ble Bombay high Court in the case of Shirish
Madhullar Delvi v. Asstt.CIT (2006) 287 ITR 242 has held that section 158BC is a
procedural section.
1