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

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1989 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1989 (11) TMI 103 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Enhancement of income by Rs. 3,24,000 under Section 2(22)(e).
2. Enhancement of income by Rs. 97,303 under Section 2(24)(iv).
3. Addition of Rs. 1,32,000 on account of cash credits.
4. Details of expenses incurred for tailoring business and non-production of tailors.
5. Nature of creditors and interest paid on borrowings.
6. Income from tailoring as the income of the assessee.
7. Refusal of continuation of registration.
8. Interest charged under Sections 139(8) and 215.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Enhancement of Income by Rs. 3,24,000 under Section 2(22)(e):

The AAC proposed an enhancement of income by Rs. 3,24,000 under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the AAC had no power to enhance the assessment by discovering new sources of income not mentioned in the return of the assessee or considered by the ITO. The Tribunal cited several cases, including CIT vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY and CIT vs. RAI BAHADUR HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA, to support its decision that the AAC's enhancement was beyond jurisdiction.

2. Enhancement of Income by Rs. 97,303 under Section 2(24)(iv):

The AAC enhanced the income by Rs. 97,303 under Section 2(24)(iv). The Tribunal reiterated its stance that the AAC cannot consider new sources of income that were neither disclosed by the assessee nor considered by the ITO. The Tribunal referred to CIT vs. NIRBHERAM DULARAM and CIT vs. JAY TEXTILE MILLS to emphasize that the AAC's power of enhancement is limited to the sources processed by the ITO.

3. Addition of Rs. 1,32,000 on Account of Cash Credits:

The AAC proposed an enhancement of Rs. 1,32,000 on account of cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal held that the AAC could not direct the ITO to make additions on new sources of income that were not considered by the ITO. The Tribunal cited KUNDAN LAL MARU vs. CIT and RAMBILAS CHANDRAM vs. CIT to support its decision that the AAC's directions were beyond jurisdiction.

4. Details of Expenses Incurred for Tailoring Business and Non-Production of Tailors:

The AAC observed that the assessee had not furnished details of expenses incurred for the tailoring business and had not produced the tailors physically before the ITO. The Tribunal directed the AAC to decide the issue on merits based on the material available on record, as the assessee was not in a position to provide more evidence.

5. Nature of Creditors and Interest Paid on Borrowings:

The AAC restored the matter back to the ITO to find out the nature of creditors. The Tribunal directed the AAC to decide the issue on merits based on the material available, as the assessee had provided all the details regarding borrowings and had nothing more to add.

6. Income from Tailoring as the Income of the Assessee:

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly considered whether the assessee was a benamidar of Saraf Textile Mills P. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AAC to consider the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of JAI DAYAL PODDAR and decide the issue accordingly.

7. Refusal of Continuation of Registration:

The AAC and ITO refused the continuation of registration, stating that the assessee was indulged in activities preventing continuation. The Tribunal reversed this decision, noting that the firm had been registered since 1973-74 with no change in constitution or activities. The Tribunal allowed the continuation of registration and directed the ITO accordingly.

8. Interest Charged under Sections 139(8) and 215:

The Tribunal deemed this a consequential ground. If any interest is due under these provisions after giving effect to the Tribunal's order, it can be charged; otherwise, it cannot.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The Tribunal found that the AAC had overstepped his jurisdiction in proposing enhancements and directed that issues be decided on merits based on available records. The continuation of registration was allowed, and interest charges were deemed consequential.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates