9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009 to consider following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the Assessing Officer made an assessment by estimation of income arbitrarily without any reasons or findings? ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in estimation of income which is 22 seats per bus without any formula and basis? iii) Whether the findings of the Assessing Officer totally based on assumption and presumption are sustainable in the eyes of law?" 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant was the proprietor of M/s Rajdeep Bus Service, Khanna and M/s Ajmer Finance Company. These concerns deal with plying of buses and financing & leasing respectively. During the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessed at Rs. 95,46,264/-. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 18,32,740/- was made to the returned income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Vide order dated 8.2.2005, Annexure P.2, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 18.32 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of occupancy of 26 seats per bus and directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income as per the books of account which was 19 seats per bus. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 25.9.2008, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and estimated the occupancy of seats at 22 per bus. The Assessing Officer issued demand notice dated 17.12.2008, Annexure P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is. However, the Assessing Officer proposed to adopt the total occupancy at the rate of 50% of total capacity of 52 seats available per bus and sought to make addition of Rs. 28,70,316/-. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee and after considering the reply submitted by the assessee, addition of Rs. 18,32,740/- was made to the returned income. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the occupancy of 19 seats of each bus. The revenue challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. It was categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the moot question was the justification of estimation of seats. Due to mechanical defect, accidents, over speed challan, and other traffic violations, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- 5. Less reciept shown by the assessee Rs. 77,13,524/- 6. Addition made as per ITAT's order Rs. 3,64,084/- Total income after appeal effect Rs. 4,75,024/- Say Rs. 4,75,030/- A perusal of the above shows that only an addition of Rs. 4,75,030/- has been made against the income of Rs. 1,10,940/- declared by the assessee. 7. Learned cousnel for the appellant-assessee relied upon plethora of judgments in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M.Esufali H.M.Abdulali, (1973) 90 ITR 271, State of Kerala vs. C.Velukutty, (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC), Anand Rice & Oil Mills vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1977) 108 ITR 372 (Cal.), State of Orissa vs. Maharaja Shri B.P.Singh DEO, (1970) 76 ITR 690 (SC), Surajmal Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
