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

1990 (12) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... venue. He, therefore, issued show-cause notices on18th Feb., 1987listing the following main points: i) Even though the registered office of the assessee is atCalcuttaand most of its shareholders and management seemed to be atCalcutta, it filed its returns showingDelhiaddress. ii) The ITO who made these assessments did not have jurisdiction to assess the assessee. iii) Even though the asst. yr. 1983-84 was the first year of assessment, the ITO did not make any enquiries whatsoever and accepted almost the results shown by the assessee. iv) The ITO did not make any enquiries regarding the genuineness of the company, subscription to its capital about the shareholding and about the business activity. v) The said pattern of shareholding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contain the date of issue and the date of hearing fixed. He also noted that the date 5th March, 1985 was put in ink and the date of hearing as mentioned in the carbon copy was changed from 16th March, 1985 to 11th Feb., 1985 in order to create evidence to indicate that this assessment was finished earlier to the assessment for the asst. yr. 1984-85. Referring to the order sheet entries for the asst. yr. 1983-84, the learned Commissioner observed that they were made in the handwriting of the ITO himself when normally such entries are made by the clerical staff in the ITO's Office. He observed that they spoke volumes of the overall handling of the assessee of that year. Similar observations were made for the asst. yr. 1984-85 and on the basis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... staff in the ITO's office.......... speak volumes about the overall handling of the assessment for this year. (v) This could be just to avoid deeper scrutiny atCalcuttawhere the business has been carried. (vi) Human nature as it is, situation cannot be ruled out, as has been noticed in this case, that a functionary of the Department may decide to act contrary to the interest of Revenue. (vii) If this situation is found, then the Assessing Officer should apply his mind on the question whether any prosecution proceedings are required to be launched against the company and its directors." 4. The assessee had pointed out that the assessee company had been allotted Permanent A/c No.(PAN) by the ITO,Company Circle,New Delhivide his commu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , etc. on16th March, 1985. Even though the asst. yr. 1983-84 was the first year of the assessee, the ITO had made enquiry regarding shareholdings in response to which the assessee had given the structure of share capital and of shareholders. It had also filed copies of the application from peak shareholders with their PAN. The assessee had also explained that Rs. 15 lakhs was out of the total share capital of Rs. 24 lakhs which had been collected by way of public subscription in respect of announcement by the assessee company of public issue. The replies filed by the assessee on 16th March, 1985 in response to the notices under s. 143(2) are also relevant in this connection and they give the necessary details not only of the paid-up share c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) Taxation 89(4):(1988)24 ITD 504(Del). To the same effect was the order dt. 22nd March, 1990 of Delhi Bench 'B' (to which one of us was a party) in ITA No. 2160/Del/87 for asst. yr. 1982-83 in the case of M/s Achal Achal Investments Ltd. case, New Delhi which was followed again in ITA No. 2227/Del/87 for the asst. yr. 1983-84 in the case of that party vide order dt.30th April, 1990. Another order dt. 15th Jan., 1990 of the Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No. 1438/Del/87 for asst. yr. 1982-83 in the case of M/s Stellar Investments Ltd.'s case New Delhi is also relevant. As in the case of CIT vs. Kashinath Co.(1987)64 CTR (All)177:(1988) 170 ITR 28(All), the learned Commissioner having himself not given any reasons in support 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