TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1958 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - even if the explanation given by the assessee, as to how the amounts came to be received, is rejected as untenable, the credits were to be treated as business receipts which are chargeable - When such a view is possible, there was no reason for the Commissioner to have invoked Section 263 of the Act to arrive at a different finding. Setting off of brought forward business loss – Held that:- The Assessing Officer passed an order giving effect to order u/s 263 of the Act - the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed, against which the appeal is filed - the Administrative Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 of the Act, the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 4. The issue involved was whether, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the creditor, can it be said that the credit is not a business income. When the assessee is doing business and has no other source of income, it has to be treated as unaccounted income in the course of its business activities. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of th Apex court in Lakmichand Baijnath v. Commissioner of Income Tax [35 ITR 416 (SC)] and found that it is not unreasonable to infer that the addition made under Section 68 is receipt from the business of the assessee. Further reference is also made to the judgment of this court in Annamalai Reddiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax [53 ITR 601 (Ker)]. In the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were to be treated as business receipts which are chargeable. When such a view is possible, there was no reason for the Commissioner to have invoked Section 263 of the Act to arrive at a different finding and therefore the said appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In I.T.A.No.46/2014 the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.349/Coch/2011. 7. In this case the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income after setting off the brought forward business loss of Rs.68,32,444/-. A revised return was as filed on 15/03/2006 showing total income as nil after setting off brought forward business loss of Rs.2,07,16,442/-. 8. The Assessing Officer, after having taken up the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
