Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

R.L.Traders Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 47(1)
February, 26th 2018
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                     Date of Decision: 07.12.2017
+     ITA 384/2017
      R.L.TRADERS                                ..... Appellant
                         Through: Mr. K.R. Manjani with
                         Mr. V.K. Manjani, Advs.
                         versus
      INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1)         ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda,
                   Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Anand
                   Chaudhuri, Adv.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
      S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)

      1.     The assessee's appeal under Section 260A of the Income
      Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as `the Act') characterizes
      the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which
      upheld the order of the Appellate Commissioner, as perverse.
      The assessee ­ for A.Y. 2007-08, faced addition of `1,34,584/-,
      under Section 68 of the Act. This was based upon entries
      shown as cash credits. Apparently, the AO ­ during the course
      of proceedings had summoned and recorded the statement of
      the creditor who admitted accommodating the assessee, in
      exchange of cash and after conceding that the transaction was
      not genuine. The amounts were brought to tax under Section 68
      of the Act, after AO held that the genuineness ­ of the









ITA No.384/2017                                                    Page 1
      transaction was exposed. The Appellate Commissioner and the
      ITAT affirmed the AO's findings in the regular quantum
      appeals. The AO imposed ­ in the subsequent proceedings
      under Section 271 of the Act `45,301/- as penalty. This too
      was carried in appeal to the Commissioner in the first instance
      and thereafter to the ITAT. All appeals failed.

      2.     Mr. K.R. Manjani, learned counsel submits that the
      facility of cross-examination was never afforded to the assessee
      and the creditor had been examined in its absence. It was also
      urged that in similar instances in the past, greater amounts were
      advanced by the same creditor, but the AO did not raise any
      objection.






      3.     This Court is of the opinion that given the finality to the
      quantum proceedings which fixed the liability upon the income
      of `1,34,584/- and the nature of the addition, the imposition of
      penalty in the circumstances could not be faulted. The citing of
      past instance or the lack of absence of cross-examination in no
      way, in the opinion of the Court, vitiates the initiation and
      culmination of penalty proceedings. No substantial question of
      law arises.

      4.     The appeal is therefore dismissed.


                                       S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J


      DECEMBER 07, 2017/kks            SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J



ITA No.384/2017                                                   Page 2

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting