Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.24 seconds)
Bhartiben Bharatbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 December, 2005 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria on 7 April, 1967

Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics Pvt Ltd v. CIT, 302 ITR126 also categorically took a similar view in the background of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed and noted that it is not open to the Appellate Authority to travel outside the record, that is, the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer with a view to point out a new source of income. In the light of view taken in these decisions, we are of the opinion that a new round can be permitted in appeal so long as the relevant facts are on record and the ground sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier for good reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 239 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 8 February, 1963

4. Adverting now to ground nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.747/Ahd/2006 and ground nos.1& 2 in the appeal of the Revenue, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring loss of Rs.20,39,406/- filed on 30-10-2001 by the assessee, carrying on the business of supplying of bandages to hospitals besides having investment in shares, after being processed on 26-08-2002 u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961[hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 22-10- 2002. Though the assessee invested in shares, no books of accounts were available with the assessee nor any such books of accounts were produced before the Assessing Officer [AO in short] during the course of assessment proceedings despite repeated requests. Since the assessee failed to comply with the terms of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act nor produced relevant books of accounts and vouchers/bills despite sufficient opportunity allowed, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and denied the claim of short term loss made in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed on going through account of the assessee appearing in books of Infinite Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.[IFSL] that the assessee deposited Rs.15,00,000/- on 7-4- 2000 and Rs.4,50,000/- on 12-5-2000 in her account. Vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked to explain sources from where these funds were obtained and paid to Infinite Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. In response, the assessee's authorized representative filed reply dated 10-03-2004,wherein the assessee 4 ITA No.535,747 &2782/A/06 denied having paid Rs.15,00,000/- on 7-4-2000 and Rs.4,50,000/- on 12-5-2000 to her broker Infinite Financial Service Pvt. Ltd and express her inability to explain these cash credits in her account. The AO did not accept this explanation of the assessee on the ground that nobody will deposit such huge amount of Rs.19,50,000/- in assessee's account and by disowning the amount of Rs.19.50 lacs, the assessee was trying to evade inquiries regarding acquisition/sources of these funds. Since the assessee did not explain the source of payment of the said amount, relying upon decisions in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT 1963 (49 ITR 482)(SC), Rosahn Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 936(SC), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Shahkar Industries vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.), the AO added the amount u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee having failed to discharge the onus of establishing the source of the amount and genuineness of the transactions .
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 393 - Full Document

Shankar Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 21 March, 1978

4. Adverting now to ground nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.747/Ahd/2006 and ground nos.1& 2 in the appeal of the Revenue, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring loss of Rs.20,39,406/- filed on 30-10-2001 by the assessee, carrying on the business of supplying of bandages to hospitals besides having investment in shares, after being processed on 26-08-2002 u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961[hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 22-10- 2002. Though the assessee invested in shares, no books of accounts were available with the assessee nor any such books of accounts were produced before the Assessing Officer [AO in short] during the course of assessment proceedings despite repeated requests. Since the assessee failed to comply with the terms of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act nor produced relevant books of accounts and vouchers/bills despite sufficient opportunity allowed, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and denied the claim of short term loss made in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed on going through account of the assessee appearing in books of Infinite Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.[IFSL] that the assessee deposited Rs.15,00,000/- on 7-4- 2000 and Rs.4,50,000/- on 12-5-2000 in her account. Vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked to explain sources from where these funds were obtained and paid to Infinite Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. In response, the assessee's authorized representative filed reply dated 10-03-2004,wherein the assessee 4 ITA No.535,747 &2782/A/06 denied having paid Rs.15,00,000/- on 7-4-2000 and Rs.4,50,000/- on 12-5-2000 to her broker Infinite Financial Service Pvt. Ltd and express her inability to explain these cash credits in her account. The AO did not accept this explanation of the assessee on the ground that nobody will deposit such huge amount of Rs.19,50,000/- in assessee's account and by disowning the amount of Rs.19.50 lacs, the assessee was trying to evade inquiries regarding acquisition/sources of these funds. Since the assessee did not explain the source of payment of the said amount, relying upon decisions in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT 1963 (49 ITR 482)(SC), Rosahn Di Hatti vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 936(SC), Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Shahkar Industries vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.), the AO added the amount u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee having failed to discharge the onus of establishing the source of the amount and genuineness of the transactions .
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 157 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. on 19 August, 1992

9. As regards additional grounds of appeal now sought to be raised before us, as already pointed out the AO while completing best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the ground that that the assessee did not comply with terms of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act nor produced the relevant books of accounts, disallowed the claim for short term capital loss of Rs.20,81,149/- on account of shares returned under the head capital gains. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) after having a remand report from the AO directed him to accept the loss in share transactions. The AO ,accordingly, gave effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A). W e find from grounds raised in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) that no such ground relating to claim of loss in shares as business loss was ever raised before the ld. CIT(A). Not even a whisper has been made in the impugned orders regarding the claim now being preferred before us through additional grounds of appeal in respect of loss in shares as business loss. In these circumstances, especially when no such facts are available on record nor the ground relating to claim of loss in shares as business loss, was raised before the ld. CIT(A), consequently, such issues now raised before us do not emerge from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). If there is no decision of the first appellate authority and no ground is taken in the appeal filed before him on a particular portion of the assessment, it can not be said that the assessee is still aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate authority in not granting such relief to him. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in their decision in CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand Private Ltd.,74 ITR 254(Guj) held that the Tribunal is not entitled to allow the assessee to agitate an issue which was not 11 ITA No.535,747 &2782/A/06 raised before the first appellate authority and there is no decision of such authority on the issue, even if the assessee has raised the issue in the memorandum of appeal and seeks to agitate it. .Similarly in Smt. Arudhanti Balkrishna vs. ITO,103 ITR 763(Guj), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that the assessee is not entitled to question the decision of the officer on a point in an appeal to the Tribunal, which was not raised or decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 20 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Arundhati Balkrishna And Ors. vs G.M. Singhvi, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 1 November, 1974

9. As regards additional grounds of appeal now sought to be raised before us, as already pointed out the AO while completing best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the ground that that the assessee did not comply with terms of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act nor produced the relevant books of accounts, disallowed the claim for short term capital loss of Rs.20,81,149/- on account of shares returned under the head capital gains. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) after having a remand report from the AO directed him to accept the loss in share transactions. The AO ,accordingly, gave effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A). W e find from grounds raised in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) that no such ground relating to claim of loss in shares as business loss was ever raised before the ld. CIT(A). Not even a whisper has been made in the impugned orders regarding the claim now being preferred before us through additional grounds of appeal in respect of loss in shares as business loss. In these circumstances, especially when no such facts are available on record nor the ground relating to claim of loss in shares as business loss, was raised before the ld. CIT(A), consequently, such issues now raised before us do not emerge from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). If there is no decision of the first appellate authority and no ground is taken in the appeal filed before him on a particular portion of the assessment, it can not be said that the assessee is still aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate authority in not granting such relief to him. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in their decision in CIT vs. Karamchand Premchand Private Ltd.,74 ITR 254(Guj) held that the Tribunal is not entitled to allow the assessee to agitate an issue which was not 11 ITA No.535,747 &2782/A/06 raised before the first appellate authority and there is no decision of such authority on the issue, even if the assessee has raised the issue in the memorandum of appeal and seeks to agitate it. .Similarly in Smt. Arudhanti Balkrishna vs. ITO,103 ITR 763(Guj), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that the assessee is not entitled to question the decision of the officer on a point in an appeal to the Tribunal, which was not raised or decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Saheli Synthetics (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 October, 1995

Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics Pvt Ltd v. CIT, 302 ITR126 also categorically took a similar view in the background of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed and noted that it is not open to the Appellate Authority to travel outside the record, that is, the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer with a view to point out a new source of income. In the light of view taken in these decisions, we are of the opinion that a new round can be permitted in appeal so long as the relevant facts are on record and the ground sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier for good reasons.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next