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 →

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (3) Versus SHANTI ENTERPRISE

2016 (6) TMI 1024 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Additions u/s 68 - Undisclosed Cash credits - Burden of proof - Held that:- All the aforesaid 23 persons, except Shri Kailashbhai Tulsibhai Patel, from whom deposits were received are the income tax assessees. They are having PAN numbers. The amounts have been received through the banking channels. Copies of accounts of each depositor were duly filed. The assessee has duly explained in respect of each of the depositors and the circumstances under which deposits were received by the assessee. 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

ibunal that the assessee has duly discharged its burden of proof. In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohini Builders reported in [2001 (3) TMI 9 - GUJARAT High Court ], amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and initial burden of proving the credits was discharged. It is held that the assessee need not prove the source of the credits and the fact that the explanation was not satisfactory would not automatically result in deeming amounts as income of the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee is a partnership firm engaged in construction of textile market known as Millenium Market . The assessee filed return of income on 19.10.2000 for the Assessment Year 2000-01 declaring 'nil' income. Said return was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening assessment. After the return was filed, notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

initiation of penalty proceedings to levy penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.4.2004, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), which was partly allowed vide order dated 30.11.2004 in favour of the assessee and CIT (A) deleted addition of ₹ 35 Lacs out of ₹ 1,55,50,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved by order of CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹ 1,20,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,15,20,000-00 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner? 7. From the record, it emerges that during the course of assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2000-2001, it was noticed that the assessee had shown receipts from booking deposit, out of which ₹ 1,55,50,000/- had been received from the following persons:- Sr. No. Name of the person A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00 20.07.1999 13 Jayantilal T. Mehta 5,90,000 20.07.1999 14 Jayantibhai Kalubhai Patel 55000 20.07.1999 15 Jignesh M. Doshi 5,50,000 20.07.1999 16 K.P.Diamond 5,70,000 20.07.1999 17 Kailshbhai Tulsibhai Patel 5,30,000 20.07.1999 18 Manisha Synthetics 35,00,000 20.07.1999 19 Mahendra Chandulal Doshi 5,00,000 20.07.1999 20 Pravinbhai Dhanjibhai Kubadia 5,50,000 20.07.1999 21 Rameshbhai B. Patel 5,50,000 20.07.1999 22 Rahul Gems 5,50,000 20.07.1999 23 S.P.Enterprise 5,50,000 20.07.1999 Total 1,55,5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reasons, directed to initiate the proceedings as above. He also submitted that the Assessing Officer has discussed the evidence with regard to all these 23 entries, therefore, the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order in favour of the assessee. 10. Mr.R.K.Patel, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee supported the impugned order and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. 11. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused 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

 

 

 

 

 

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