Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)
Ramanlal & Brothers, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 21 June, 2010 cites

B & Brothers Engineering Works vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 December, 2002

5. Be that as it was, the fact that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has granted part relief and taken a tangent view by invoking the provisions of section 44AF and 44AD and also taken the guidance for adoption of percentage of profit itself proves that the Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(Appeals) both have merely proceeded on an estimation to determine the profit of the assessee. Rather, during the course of argument it was also pointed out that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has wrongly directed to compute the income u/s.44AF or u/s.44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961 because the turnover of the assessee had exceeded the prescribed limit, therefore, the application of presumptive rate of profit as prescribed in those sections should not have been applied. This is not the case where the assessee has deliberately not produced the books of account but the facts have revealed that due to certain unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances the books were sealed by a Government Authority. However, this fact should also not be over- looked that the books of account have duly been audited and the Auditors Report was very much a part of the Revenue record being filed alongwith the return. No specific defect was pointed out to demonstrate that a particular item of income was concealed by the assessee. Rather a general view was taken that since the rate of Gross Profit was shown at lower percentage, therefore, the assessee was liable for concealment penalty. On those very facts a view has been taken by the ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of Sahyog ITA No.546/Ahd/2008 M/s.Ramanlal & Brothers vs. Dy.CIT Asst.Year - 2003-04 -6- Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. vs. Asst.CIT reported as 111 TTJ 540 (Lucknow) that merely because books of account of the assessee have been rejected, ipso facto not be held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or the assessee is guilty of fraud or willful neglect unless and until a concealment is detected. In the present appeal, there was no positive evidence to demonstrate that the concealment of income was detected by the Assessing Officer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Equitable Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, G. Ward, And ... on 19 February, 1988

There is one more decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Mimosa Investment Co.(P) Ltd. vs. ITO reported as 28 SOT 470 (Mumbai) and therein a view was taken that once all relevant facts were furnished alongwith the return but merely on account of fact the Assessing Officer recalculated the profit, the assessee must not be held responsible for concealment of the particulars of its income or even furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The argument was that nothing was concealed or hidden by the assessee, rather everything was in the knowledge of Revenue Department due to the furnishing of the Auditors Report.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Sahyog Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 May, 2007

5. Be that as it was, the fact that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has granted part relief and taken a tangent view by invoking the provisions of section 44AF and 44AD and also taken the guidance for adoption of percentage of profit itself proves that the Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(Appeals) both have merely proceeded on an estimation to determine the profit of the assessee. Rather, during the course of argument it was also pointed out that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has wrongly directed to compute the income u/s.44AF or u/s.44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961 because the turnover of the assessee had exceeded the prescribed limit, therefore, the application of presumptive rate of profit as prescribed in those sections should not have been applied. This is not the case where the assessee has deliberately not produced the books of account but the facts have revealed that due to certain unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances the books were sealed by a Government Authority. However, this fact should also not be over- looked that the books of account have duly been audited and the Auditors Report was very much a part of the Revenue record being filed alongwith the return. No specific defect was pointed out to demonstrate that a particular item of income was concealed by the assessee. Rather a general view was taken that since the rate of Gross Profit was shown at lower percentage, therefore, the assessee was liable for concealment penalty. On those very facts a view has been taken by the ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of Sahyog ITA No.546/Ahd/2008 M/s.Ramanlal & Brothers vs. Dy.CIT Asst.Year - 2003-04 -6- Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. vs. Asst.CIT reported as 111 TTJ 540 (Lucknow) that merely because books of account of the assessee have been rejected, ipso facto not be held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or the assessee is guilty of fraud or willful neglect unless and until a concealment is detected. In the present appeal, there was no positive evidence to demonstrate that the concealment of income was detected by the Assessing Officer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1