TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited - the Court is to interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed by a Court below - since there is no illegality or infirmity with the impugned orders the petition stands dismissed. - CRR-1317-2015(O&M) - - - Dated:- 22-5-2018 - MR. H. S. MADAAN, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Advocate For The Respondents : Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate ORDER H.S. MADAAN, J. Complainant - Income Tax Officer,Ward-1(3), Bathinda had filed a complaint under Sections 276 C and 277 read with Section 278 B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) against M/s Sharma Misthan Bhandar and others on the allegations that accused had been drawing considerable income by sale of sweets, meals and other eatables running their business under the name and style of M/s Sharma Misthan Bhandar situated at The Mall, Bathinda; that such concern had filed return of income tax for the assessment year 1987-88 at ₹ 64,720 on 27.7.1987 duly signed and verified by accused Pardeep Kumar as partner of the firm; that statement was acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vitri Devi, that the creditors were not inclined to come in the Court since that was prohibited by their customs. The Assessing Officer deputed the Inspector to record the statement of the accused Nos.4 and 5 at their residence and their statements were recorded on 28.7.1989, from the perusal of which, the Assessing Officer find that they could not earn the net income of ₹ 18,200/- from their respective jobs and credits were found to be bogus, in that way amount of ₹ 8500/- and ₹ 5,000/- belongs to accused No.1 and these credits had been shown to deflate the income and with intent to evade the tax and penalty chargeable and imposable under the Act, as such, the said amount was added to the income of accused No.1. Geeta Devi is said to be wife of Pardeep Kumar and Savitri Devi is wife of Som Dutt, partners of the firm. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 had assisted the accused firm in evading the tax, penalty, chargeable and imposable by giving false affidavits and statements of account knowingly it to be false, thus committing offence under Sections 276 C and 278 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Sections 271 (1)(c) and 273(2)(a) were ordered to be initiated. Accused was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were also maintained and as such accused deliberately had created such circumstances to enable itself to evade the tax and penalty chargeable and imposable under the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, the proviso of Section 145(1) was made applicable and the sales were estimated at ₹ 6,50,000/- against the declared sales of ₹ 5,07,724/- and the gross profit at 45% was applied as against 41.43% shown in the return and it was found that since the assessee No.1 enjoys the income of the sale of sweets meals, Puri, Kachori, Lassi etc. and does purchase sugar, maida, vanaspati etc., no sale on account of Bardana has been credited in its books of account and consequently, on account of said sale of Bardana, ₹ 6,000/- were added to its income. The total income was assessed at ₹ 2,67,540/- u/S 143(3). Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 273(2) (a) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accused aggrieved against that order dated 31.7.89 passed by the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal, who however, upheld the addition made on account of cash credits i.e. ₹ 13,500/- and ₹ 6,000/- on account of sale of Bardana. An addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 64,720 which was duly signed by respondent Pardeep Kumar. Upon scrutiny of documents the Assessment Officer found that some new credits have been shown in the return in the name of Mrs.Sawitri Devi and Mrs.GeetaDevi, who were also partners of the assessee firm. It was also found that purchase of empty gatta boxes(dabbas) have not been accounted for in the account books however admittedly the boxes were included in the weight of sweets at the time of sale of sweets and it was not vouched and no bill book was maintained with respect to sale purchase of these gatta boxes. Therefore, by invoking provisions of Section 145(1) the sales income of the firm was assessed as ₹ 6,50,000 which also included the deposits shown in the name of Geeta Devi and Savitri Devi to the tune of ₹ 13,500/-. This amount was shown in the income of assessee firm by the assessment officer on the ground that they have failed to show that they were earning this much amount. The assessment officer admitted in his cross-examination that both these respondents were summoned, who before him in connection with the deposits shown by them in the income tax returns but they did not appear before the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
