9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the said aspect of the matter has not property considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax HELD THAT:- In the first place, there is no material on record to show that there was income derived by the petitioner by doing business. According to the petitioner, he was only a collection agent. The previous year returns and the relevant year business would only go to show that he was running vulcanizing shop and he could not have derived so much of income from his business. Nevertheless, it was for the petitioner to place on record necessary documents before the Commissioner of Income Tax so as to consider the case of the writ petitioner in a proper manner while exercising the revisional jurisdiction u/s 264 of the I.T. Act. As settled princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the respondents Sri Tirumallesh M. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated-22.02.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 in F.No.264/Pr.CIT-KLB/2017-18 vide Annexure-H. ii) Issue any other writ of order or direction as this Court may deem fit to issue, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice. 3. The facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under: The petitioner runs a vulcanizing shop in Afzalpur, Kalaburagi district. It is his case that he used to collect the money from the land owners, who are interested in digging a borewell and af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d passed the order at Annexure-H, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the assessment order was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax by filing a revision petition under Section 264 of the I.T. Act and the contention of the petitioner was negated by passing the order at Annexure-H in the absence of any proper material being placed on record by the petitioner to establish that there was expenditure to the tune of Rs. 56,80,532/- and therefore, the impugned order is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court has meticulously p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned order was inevitable. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks one more opportunity for the petitioner to place on record the necessary material before the Commissioner of Income Tax and requests the Court to set aside the impugned order and provide one more opportunity for the petitioner to place necessary clinching evidence so as to show that there was no income derived by him or to explain the alleged expenses. 14. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order at Annexure-H is quashed. c) The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 - the Commissioner of Income Tax in F.No. 264/Pr.CIT-KLB/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
