New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1487 - ITAT JABALPUR

2015 (10) TMI 1487 - ITAT JABALPUR - TMI - Business receipt - Held that:- Merely because a payment is reflected in AS-26 and is shown to have been made to the assessee, it cannot be brought to tax in his hands when the said money is not received by the assessee. We have noted that the stand of the assessee is that these payments made by BPCL, AIR and IOC were never received by the assessee, and the monies, received fraudulently in the name of and on behalf of the assessee, were received by some .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

find out actual beneficiary of the payments which were admittedly made through banking channels. As a matter of fact assessee has given ample evidence that some other person had opened a bank account in assessee's name and appropriated the funds on his own, in such account. All these facts require to be properly investigated. In this view of the matter, we delete the additions in respect of monies said to have been paid by BPCL, AIR and IOC and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r to examine the explanation of the assessee on merits and in the event of these receipts having been included in the receipts disclosed for the subsequent year on account of late receipts, exclude the same for double taxation in this year as well. - IT APPEAL NO. 137 (JAB.) OF 2014 - Dated:- 31-3-2015 - I.C. SUDHIR AND PRAMOD KUMAR, JJ. For The Appellant : G.N. Purohit For The Respondent : Abhishek Shukla ORDER Per Pramod Kumar : 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ceipt is not justified. The assessee had no role in the Patna business. It was fraudulently secured by Mandhup Kumar Singh. Therefore, the treatment of receipt of ₹ 51,33,559/- as assessee's receipt is not justified, should he quashed in toto. 2. That learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 24,89,710/- on account of receipts from B.H.E.L., Bhopal for the assessment year 2009-10. The bills for these payments were raised in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fied. No profit at all should have been charged on the above receipts, therefore, the entire addition of net profit should be deleted or in the alternative the estimation of net profit rate may please be reduced reasonably." 3. The relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a retired soldier. He upon his retirement as Lieutenant Colonel, under a settlement scheme framed by the Government of India, received certain security contracts from the Government bodies such as B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4,89,710 which was also brought to tax. 5. The Assessing Officer further noticed that while the assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ 5,22,214 in respect of service tax, his actual service tax payment was of ₹ 9,55,713. The Assessing Officer treated these unexplained expenses as income of the assessee under section 69C of the Income-tax Act. 6. Aggrieved by the additions so made, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended by the assessee that so far as al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egards the variation in receipts from BHEL, it was explained that the related payments were made by the BHEL at the year end and received, and duly accounted for, by the assessee in subsequent year. As far the unexplained expenditure of ₹ 4,33,505, the assessee gave an explanation which was duly accepted by the CIT(A). Coming back to the main addition of ₹ 51,33,559 and of ₹ 24,89,710 in respect of variation in BHEL receipts, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO but restricte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve noted that the stand of the assessee is that these payments made by BPCL, AIR and IOC were never received by the assessee, and the monies, received fraudulently in the name of and on behalf of the assessee, were received by some other person. Neither this aspect of the matter is examined on merits, nor any effort is made to find out through appropriate inquiries through related banks, the actual beneficiary of these payments. It is only elementary that income tax proceedings are not adversari .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version