TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surrendered amount is from business income. It could be on account of any other transaction legal or otherwise. Merely because an assessee carries on certain business, it does not necessarily follow that the amounts surrendered by him are on account of its business transactions. There is no presumption that absent anything else an amount surrendered by an assessee is his business income. It is for the assessee to establish the source of such surrendered amount. - Income Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 21-7-2016 - S. J. Vazifdar, ACJ And Deepak Sibal, JJ. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent ORDER S. J. Vazifda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taxed u/s 69-A and set off losses u/s 70 and 71 is not permissible against such income. iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Hon ble ITAT is perverse in law in quashing the order under section 263 ignoring that assessment order is erroneous in so far is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessee had failed to maintain the quantity wise details and as such it was not possible to compare the input with output and therefore books of account were liable to be rejected in the light of decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana in the case of Hargopal Singh proprietor, Gopal Sweets v. CIT 273 ITR 507 which the AO failed to do. 2. The arguments were limited to questions (i) and (ii). The third q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent succeeded in demonstrating before the Tribunal that the Assessing Officer had made a detailed enquiry at the assessment stage with regard to the fall in the G.P. rate. The Assessing Officer sought complete details with regard to the manufacturing process, month-wise production, consumption, quantitative sale and justification of major expenses. It was not contended that the respondent failed to furnish these details. The respondent produced his books of account which had been checked by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal after considering the nature of the respondent s business held that it may not have been possible for the respondent to give exact details of the manufacture of its products and noted that the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 133(A) of the Act at the respondent s business premises during the course of which a sum of ₹ 80 lacs were surrendered as additional income and the respondent bifurcated the surrendered income as ₹ 50,00,000/- on account of building renovation, ₹ 15,000,00/- on account of office equipment and ₹ 15,000,00/- on account of sundry receivables. The assessee claimed a set off of ₹ 14,84,641/- towards unabsorbed loss and declared a total income of ₹ 63,42,648/-. 7. Section 72(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under:- 72. (1) Where for any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head Profits and gains of business or profession is a loss to the assessee, not being a loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard to the fact that the surrendered amount cannot be taxed under any head of income until and unless the assessee furnishes evidence of the same. In other words the appellant s case was that the source of income had not been established. The order further expressly states that a perusal of assessment record shows that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence that the surrendered amount is on account of business income. The assessee did not place on record any evidence by way of vouchers etc. in regard to the construction of building/office equipments . The respondent asserts that the surrendered amount is on account of business income. It is for the assesssee to establish the same. 10. Mr. Bhan then relied upon the following o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
