Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ravindra Pratap Thareja Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Rewa (M.P.)

2015 (10) TMI 1487 - ITAT JABALPUR

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 other person. Neither this aspect of the ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 direction that the same can be brought to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 correctness of learned CIT(A)'s order dated 30 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 month of April, 2009 and they were received .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rged 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 BHEL. During the course of scrutiny assessme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 alleged unaccounted receipts from BPCL (Rs. 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 restricted the addition to 40% of, what were termed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 adversarial proceedings and the powers vested 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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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