9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted with the ITO, Distt: I(5) Patiala. Notice under ss. 132(5) and 139(2) had been issued by that authority. Later on, the ITO, Distt: (4) Patiala informed the assessee vide letter dt. 8th Feb., 1988 that his case had been transferred to ITO, Distt: 1(4), Patiala vide CIT's order No. SD/127/87-88/S S/23703 dt. 19th Jan., 1988. The assessment was framed by Asstt. CIT, Inv., Circle Patiala. It was not clarified as to how the ITO, Inv., Circle, Patiala came to assume jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that s. 127 laid down conditions which had to be cumulatively fulfiled. According to him, one condition was of giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the case of transfer of jurisdiction from one author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer to another officer at Patiala for which communication of reasons was not necessary. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. In the case of Ajantha Industries Ors., the Supreme Court struck down the transfer order on the ground that the reasons had not been communicated. In our opinion, that case is distinguishable, inasmuch as, the CBDT had transferred the case from one station to another. In the instant case, however, the case was transferred from one officer to another at Patiala. In such a situation, the non-communication of reasons, in our opinion, would not render the transfer of the case as invalid. Moreover, the High Courts and Supreme Court under the writ jurisdiction may strike down an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosed income of Rs. 15,100 from cloth business by applying net profit rate of 12.5% on sales of Rs. 1,20,804. There was a search at the business premises of the assessee on 8th Dec., 1987. On the basis of certain notations in the diary, i.e., "Moti diary" seized at the time of search, the ITO noticed that the assessee had made considerable sales on various dates from 1st Dec., 1987 to 7th Dec., 1987. On the basis of such notations, he estimated the sales at Rs. 8,50,000. Since the assessee had himself shown sales of Rs. 1,20,804 the balance unrecorded sales amounted to Rs. 7,30,000 on which 10% rate was applied thereby resulting in an addition of Rs. 73,000. 6. The learned CIT(A) took note of the fact that even for asst. yr. 1988-89 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of Rs. 1,25,804. The learned CIT(A) estimated the turnover at Rs. 2.5 lacs and applied a net profit rate of 10%. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the figure of turnover of Rs. 2.5 lacs was not based on any material and that even for asst. yr. 1988-89, the turnover had been taken by the Department at Rs. 2 lacs. It is true that the assessee is carrying on business in a village but he does not maintain any books of account in respect of cloth business. In such a situation, the sales of Rs. 1,20,804 claimed to have been effected by the assessee were not subject to verification. In our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the turnover for the year under consideration is also taken at Rs. 2 lacs as was taken for asst. yr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
