TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses petition challenging Tribunal order for assessment year 1978-79, upholding findings on alleged bogus purchases and unaccounted stock.</h1> <h3>AM Zainalabdeen Musaliar Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> AM Zainalabdeen Musaliar Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1997] 224 ITR 85, 152 CTR 134 Issues:1. Challenge to the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Dispute regarding the assessment year 1978-79 and the income disclosed by the assessee.3. Allegations of bogus purchases and unaccounted stock by the assessee.4. Inclusion of income from other sources.5. Disallowance of provision made by the assessee for payment of Central sales tax on local purchase of kernels.Analysis:1. The petition challenges the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and seeks a direction to refer specific questions for the decision of the court. The assessment year in question is 1978-79, where the Income-tax Officer proposed a significantly higher income than what was disclosed by the assessee. The assessment process involved objections, hearings, and subsequent orders by different authorities.2. The dispute regarding alleged bogus purchases and unaccounted stock by the assessee relates to 38,727 kgs. of shelled cashew kernels. The Income-tax Officer found a portion of the purchases to be bogus and added an amount under 'Other sources' due to unproved sources. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) limited the addition, which was further contested by both the Revenue and the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the addition after detailed examination of evidence, leading to the rejection of a reference application by the court.3. The inclusion of Rs. 30,000 as income from other sources was based on the inability of the assessee to provide acceptable evidence. The Tribunal affirmed this inclusion after thorough consideration of the facts, concluding it as a finding on a pure question of fact. Therefore, the court declined to direct a reference on this issue.4. Questions 15 to 17 revolve around the disallowance of a provision made by the assessee for the payment of Central sales tax on local purchase of kernels. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this provision based on an amendment exempting such purchases from Central sales tax. Both the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal upheld this disallowance, as the amendment clearly exempted the purchase of cashew kernels from the tax. Consequently, the court declined to refer these questions as no legal issue arose.5. In conclusion, the petition challenging the Tribunal's order was dismissed by the court after considering the various issues raised by the assessee regarding the assessment and additions made by the tax authorities.
TaxTMI 