Bhairavnath Agrofin Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1614 (Raj-HC) : (2013) 052 (I) ITCL 0224 : (2013) 354 ITR 0276 : (2013) 259 CTR 0051 : (2013) 085 DTR 0403 Income Tax Act, 1961 --Assessment--Best judgment assessment Validity of --Assessing officer, passed an order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act as the assessee failed to avail of the various opportunities and also failed to give reply to the notice under section 142(1). Assessee filed some additional evidence and such evidence were not found genuine. Commissioner (Appeals) Tax (Appeals) had observed that the lease agreement from January, 1993, while agricultural receipts were in the month of April, 1993. No sowing was done in April, 1993 and it had evaluated the evidence on the basis of human probability and surrounding circumstances. Tribunal upheld the conclusion drawn by Commissioner (Appeals) and with regard to investment in shares, it was found that no details given as to shares of which company had been purchased or sold and without such details, one could not ascertain the quantum of profit or loss. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held to disallow loss in shares. *Held :* Rightly so as the assessee failed to provide adequate material on the points raised by the assessing officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) and even before ITAT nothing material was placed except reiterating the facts pleaded before. Therefore, no interference was called for. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 144 In the Rajasthan High Court Narendra Kumar Jain & Jainendra Kumar Ranka J.J. BhairavnathAgrofin Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT D.B. ITA No. 527 of 2011 A.Y. 1994-95 24 January, 2013 Appellant by : Sharvan Kumar Gupta, for Ankur Rastogi JUDGMENT *Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.* Mr. Sharvan Kumar Gupta on behalf of Mr. Ankur Rastogi, for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant herein for the assessment year 1994-95 assailing the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the ITAT'), which, vide order dt. 30-7-2010, dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 3. The appellant is a private limited company and submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on 22-3-1996, declaring an income of Rs. 10,59,837. The entire income was shown by way of agricultural income and thus an exemption was claimed. Initially, the return was processed under section 143(1) (a) on 25-3-1997. Thereafter, it was revealed that huge amount in cash was deposited in the bank account of the appellant and it was further claimed that investment of more than Rs. 17 lakhs was made in shares. Accordingly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 4. In pursuance to the notice under section 148, the assessing officer proceeded ahead to make enquiry with regard to the claim of agricultural income as well as investment in shares, etc. It is stated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-L Jaipur, who happens to be the assessing officer, that despite of ample opportunities having been given by sending several notices, no compliance was made by the appellant to attend the proceedings. The assessing officer, inter alia, required the appellant to provide; (i) information with regard to advance against share application money to the tune of Rs. 86,100; SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1614 (Raj-HC) : (2013) 052 (I) ITCL 0224 : (2013) 354 ITR 0276 : (2013) 259 CTR 0051 : (2013) 085 DTR 0403

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Assessment--Best judgment assessment Validity of --Assessing officer, passed an order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act as the assessee failed to avail of the various opportunities and also failed to give reply to the notice under section 142(1). Assessee filed some additional evidence and such evidence were not found genuine. Commissioner (Appeals) Tax (Appeals) had observed that the lease agreement from January, 1993, while agricultural receipts were in the month of April, 1993. No sowing was done in April, 1993 and it had evaluated the evidence on the basis of human probability and surrounding circumstances. Tribunal upheld the conclusion drawn by Commissioner (Appeals) and with regard to investment in shares, it was found that no details given as to shares of which company had been purchased or sold and without such details, one could not ascertain the quantum of profit or loss. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held to disallow loss in shares. Held : Rightly so as the assessee failed to provide adequate material on the points raised by the assessing officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) and even before ITAT nothing material was placed except reiterating the facts pleaded before. Therefore, no interference was called for.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 144

In the Rajasthan High Court

Narendra Kumar Jain & Jainendra Kumar Ranka J.J.

BhairavnathAgrofin Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

D.B. ITA No. 527 of 2011

A.Y. 1994-95

24 January, 2013

Appellant by : Sharvan Kumar Gupta, for Ankur Rastogi

JUDGMENT

Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.

Mr. Sharvan Kumar Gupta on behalf of Mr. Ankur Rastogi, for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant herein for the assessment year 1994-95 assailing the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the ITAT'), which, vide order dt. 30-7-2010, dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

3. The appellant is a private limited company and submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on 22-3-1996, declaring an income of Rs. 10,59,837. The entire income was shown by way of agricultural income and thus an exemption was claimed. Initially, the return was processed under section 143(1) (a) on 25-3-1997. Thereafter, it was revealed that huge amount in cash was deposited in the bank account of the appellant and it was further claimed that investment of more than Rs. 17 lakhs was made in shares. Accordingly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

4. In pursuance to the notice under section 148, the assessing officer proceeded ahead to make enquiry with regard to the claim of agricultural income as well as investment in shares, etc. It is stated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-L Jaipur, who happens to be the assessing officer, that despite of ample opportunities having been given by sending several notices, no compliance was made by the appellant to attend the proceedings. The assessing officer, inter alia, required the appellant to provide;

(i) information with regard to advance against share application money to the tune of Rs. 86,100;