9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of enhancement to income by including excess sale proceeds credited in the bank accounts of Ganesh Trading Company and Mahavir Trading Company. 2. Justification of enhancement to income by including unexplained cash credits appearing in the accounts of Mahavir Trading Company and Ganesh Trading Company. 3. Error in enhancement of income by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the case of M/s. Shivshankar & Co. Summary: Issue 1: Enhancement to Income by Including Excess Sale Proceeds The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the enhancement to the income made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by including Rs. 3,74,283 and Rs. 82,611 as excess sale proceeds credited in the bank accounts of Ganesh Trading Company and Mahavir Trading Company, respectively. The Tribunal found that these two concerns were benamidars of the assessee, created to divert part of its profits earned in dealings in imported silk yarn. The enhancement was upheld as it was based on the accounts of these two concerns in the assessee's books of account and did not travel beyond the record. Issue 2: Enhancement to Income by Including Unexplained Cash Credits The Tribunal also confirmed the enhancement to the income by including Rs. 2,84,819 and Rs. 93,431 as unexplained cash credits appearing in the accounts of Mahavir Trading Company and Ganesh Trading Company, respectively. The Income-tax Officer's inquiries revealed that these concerns were not genuine and were used by the assessee to conceal its income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed further investigation, which led to the conclusion that these credits were indeed concealed income of the assessee. Issue 3: Error in Enhancement of Income in the Case of M/s. Shivshankar & Co. The Tribunal found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in enhancing the income of the assessee by Rs. 1,11,900 in the case of M/s. Shivshankar & Co. The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Officer had not dealt with Shivshankar & Co. in the assessment order, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not directed the Income-tax Officer to consider it in the remand order. Therefore, the enhancement was made by assessing a source of income not discussed in the assessment order, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Conclusion: - The enhancement related to Ganesh Trading Company and Mahavir Trading Company was justified and sustained. - The enhancement related to Shivshankar & Co. was not justified and was set aside. Answers to Questions: - Question No. 1: In the affirmative. - Question No. 2: In the affirmative. - Revenue's Question: In the negative. There shall be no order as to costs.
|
