Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)Section 113 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956
He submitted that affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh, a tailor-master having a shop nearby, was also filed (copy placed at p. 23 of the paper book) where he stated that he attended to his work in the shop and signed the papers prepared by the survey party at the end of the day. He also stated that stock inventory was prepared in his presence. He submitted that these affidavits have not been controverted by the Revenue and these persons were never cross-examined by the AO. Therefore, the contents of the affidavits should be accepted to be true. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC). Thus, he contended that this is absolutely clear that stock inventory was not drawn in the presence of any responsible person. It was also stated that the space required to store 81,76,700 bricks mentioned in the inventory was 80234 sq. ft. As against the same, the space available with the assessee was only 35800 sq. ft. He further drew our attention to pp. 29 and 30 of the paper book which is a detailed map of location and the space available with the assessee along with photographs indicating clearly that it was not possible to stock the number of bricks indicated in the stock inventory. He submitted that despite repeated requests made to the AO to visit the premises to verify himself the contention of the assessee, his request was not acceded to. He further stated that the assessee had produced the copies of Revenue record of the adjoining land to show that the same was under cultivation, where wheat was being grown. He drew our attention to copies of the Revenue's record placed at pp. 26 to 28 of the paper book. Thus, he submitted that claim of the authorised officer that even the adjoining land was available for storing the bricks was factually incorrect and this has not been rebutted by the AO. He further stated that the assessee had also pointed out to the AO that brick kilns were controlled by the State Government and the officers of the District Food & Supply Controller, carried out the periodical inspection. He drew our attention to p. 31 of the paper book which is a copy of certificate of District Food & Supply Controller, where it was clearly mentioned that the total bricks manufactured by the assessee were 36,50,100 as per stock inventory and consumption of coal was 831.541 tonnes. He further drew our attention to pp. 32 to 35 of the paper book which are copies of the daily stock register and coal register maintained by the assessee and inspected by the Food & Supply Department. He further drew our attention to p. 36 of the paper book which is a summary of stock variation in the stock found and stock inventory prepared in respect of six other premises belonging to the family members of the assessee and submitted that in four cases, there was no variation and in two cases small variations of the value of Rs. 83,380 and Rs. 1,31,073 were found. He further drew our attention to pp. 37 to 40 of the paper book which is a copy of assessment order in the case of Smt. Gursharan Kaur, sister-in-law of the assessee, where against the capacity of 8 lakhs bricks, the number of bricks inside the brick kiln were found 3,04,666 as against the number taken at 8 lakhs by the AO which is just not possible to load the kiln with full capacity. He then drew our attention to para 4.3 on p. 9 of the assessment order where the AO has mentioned that the assessee strongly objected to the valuation of coal that how the survey team had reached a conclusion that there were 21 trucks of coal lying at the site without any physical weighment of the same. There were no separate 21 heaps of the coal at the site. Thus, how could simply by visual look one reached the conclusion that there were 21 trucks load of coal. After considering these submissions, the AO has recorded a clear finding that stock of coal has not been reasonably measured and therefore, no cognizance was being taken in the variation of coal Stock. He further submitted that despite the fact that very detailed submissions were made before the AO about the discrepancies in the inventory drawn, the AO made the addition by recording only 11 lines without dealing (with) any of the objections and contentions of the assessee. He submitted that whole exercise was only to defend the authorized officer who had not drawn the stock inventory on physical counting. Thus, he submitted that the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition.
Finance Act, 2012
Roof & Tower Construction (P) Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 27 April, 2001
3. The next issue in appeal is regarding the non-levy of surcharge in block assessment proceedings. The learned Authorised Representative has made a fervent plea for the non-levy of surcharge by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in the case of Hemco Inds. v. Asstt. CITIT(SS)A No. 5/Asr/1996, dt. 25th Oct., 2002 where, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta Bench in the case of Builcon Towers (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT(2000) 113 Taxman 74 (Cal)(Mag), it was held that surcharge was not leviable before 1st June, 2002 as this amendment has not been made applicable with retrospective effect. A recent judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of V.S. Fab.
Dgp Windsor (India) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 April, 2001
However, the proviso to Section 113 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st June, 2002 as per which levy of surcharge on the undisclosed income was specifically provided w.e.f. 1st June, 2002. However, such proviso has not been given retrospective effect and is applicable only to cases where searches had been carried out after 1st June, 2002. In the present case, the search had been carried out prior to 1st June, 2002 and, therefore, no surcharge on tax on undisclosed income was leviable. This view also finds support from the decision of the Tribunal Chandigarh Bench in the case of V.S. Fabrics & Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIR, Cir-1 (2), Ludhiana (supra) and decision of Tribunal, Bombay Bench in the case of D.G.P. Windsor (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(supra) and also the decision of Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in the case of Hemco Indus, v. Asstt. CITin ITA No. 5/Asr/1996, dt. 25th Oct., 2002. Having regard to these facts and the legal position, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) does not merit any interference. The same is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed.
1