9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciary of these payments. It is only elementary that income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings and the powers vested in the income tax authorities are to be used when circumstances so warrant or justify. It is a fit case in which the Assessing Officer ought to have established the trail of money and find out actual beneficiary of the payments which were admittedly made through banking channels. As a matter of fact assessee has given ample evidence that some other person had opened a bank account in assessee's name and appropriated the funds on his own, in such account. All these facts require to be properly investigated. In this view of the matter, we delete the additions in respect of monies said to have been paid by BPCL, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereby confirming the receipt of ₹ 51,33,559/- in the hands of assessee as business receipt is not justified. The assessee had no role in the Patna business. It was fraudulently secured by Mandhup Kumar Singh. Therefore, the treatment of receipt of ₹ 51,33,559/- as assessee's receipt is not justified, should he quashed in toto. 2. That learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 24,89,710/- on account of receipts from B.H.E.L., Bhopal for the assessment year 2009-10. The bills for these payments were raised in the month of April, 2009 and they were received in Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment year 2010-11 and were accordingly declared by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also brought to tax. 5. The Assessing Officer further noticed that while the assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ 5,22,214 in respect of service tax, his actual service tax payment was of ₹ 9,55,713. The Assessing Officer treated these unexplained expenses as income of the assessee under section 69C of the Income-tax Act. 6. Aggrieved by the additions so made, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended by the assessee that so far as alleged unaccounted receipts from BPCL (Rs. 44,39,357), AIR (Rs. 3,07,868) and IOC (Rs. 3,86,334) are concerned, the assessee has never received these sums. It was explained that apparently one person by the name of Madhup Singh, had fraudulently, and by misus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this aspect of the matter is examined on merits, nor any effort is made to find out through appropriate inquiries through related banks, the actual beneficiary of these payments. It is only elementary that income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings and the powers vested in the income tax authorities are to be used when circumstances so warrant or justify. It is a fit case in which the Assessing Officer ought to have established the trail of money and find out actual beneficiary of the payments which were admittedly made through banking channels. As a matter of fact assessee has given ample evidence that some other person had opened a bank account in assessee's name and appropriated the funds on his own, in such account. Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
