Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (5) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0 was taken from the bank and the balance amount was contributed from the sale proceeds of an old truck sold for Rs. 1,20,000. This plea found favour with the Assessing Officer. The assessee had also purchased a car for Rs. 1,08,000. Here also, the assessee had claimed that an old car had been sold for Rs. 95,000 and the sale proceeds had been utilised for purchasing a new car. The Assessing Officer noticed that no explanation had been furnished in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 13,000. The Assessing Officer while looking into the account of the assessee in the Canara Bank, noticed certain deposits, as under: (i) Rs. 50,000 on 28th May, 1987 (ii) Rs. 50,000 on 17th July, 1987 (iii) Rs. 35,000 on 28th Oct., 1987 (iv) Rs. 70 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the assessee had received a total sum of Rs. 11,82,000 by way of contract receipt. It cannot be ruled out that the assessee did have sufficient funds in his hands and deposits were made in the bank account from contract receipt also. The assessee had made sale of a truck and of a car during the year under appeal. The sale proceeds were partly deposited in the bank account and partly utilised for the purchase of new vehicles. The Assessing Officer took an adverse view that the assessee had failed to disclose the dates of sale of old vehicles as well as purchase of new vehicles. In our view, that alone should not be treated to be sufficient reason to reject the assessee's explanatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ddition is deleted. 5. Grounds Nos. 4 to 7 and 9 to 12 relate to a common issue. The assessee had shown income from trucks also. The plea was that the three trucks owned by the assessee had been used in contract business and certain income was earned by way of hiring charges also. The Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the income from trucks because the assessee maintained no books of account. The Assessing Officer noticed that a new truck PCF 8981 had been purchased during the year under appeal. Income @ Rs. 20,000 p.m. was estimated for this truck, for a period of three months. Expenditure for running and maintenance was allowed @ Rs. 8,000 p.m. Deduction was further allowed in respect of insurance, road- tax, etc. For the second .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he assessee had shown income @ Rs. 1,250 p.m. and, if the income, as disclosed in this year is not accepted, it may be fixed between Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 for this year. This suggestion has been made by way of alternate plea. It has been pointed out that in asst. yr. 1990-91, assessment under s. 143(3) has been made and income, per truck, has been determined at Rs. 22,000. Similarly, in asst. yr. 1991-92, income per truck was determined at Rs. 20,000 only in assessment made under s. 143(3). 7. The learned Departmental Representative has, in reply, submitted that the assessee had earned hiring charges, as would be clear from the past assessments but true income was not declared. After giving benefit of depreciation, truck income was d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 8 relates to the charging of interest under s. 139 and 217. The CIT(A) rejected the plea with the observation that charging of interest was not appealable. The learned counsel has submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112 : (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC), it was open to an assessee to dispute the levy in appeal provided he limits himself to the ground that he is not liable to the levy at all. The learned counsel has contended that the CIT(A) did not consider the grounds raised by the assessee and rejected it with the observation that it was not appealable. 10. We have looked to the facts of the case and, in view of the decision of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates