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>Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal on void assessment due to discrepancies in assets and liabilities.</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer Ward- 6(1), Ahmedabad Versus Shri Pravin B. Kachadia HUF and Shri Pravin B. Kachadia HUF Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Ahmedabad</h3> Income Tax Officer Ward- 6(1), Ahmedabad Versus Shri Pravin B. Kachadia HUF and Shri Pravin B. Kachadia HUF Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Ahmedabad ... Issues involved:Appeals by Revenue and Assessee against CIT(A)'s order for A.Ys. 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06; Treatment of return of income as non-est; Assessment order under section 143(3); Addition of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68; Disallowance of agricultural income; Validity of return of income; Assessment based on non-existent ROI; Opportunity for cross-examination; Dismissal of Revenue's appeal.Analysis:1. Common Submissions and Consolidated Order:- Both parties agreed to have common submissions for 3 different years' appeals.- All appeals were consolidated for convenience, starting with A.Y. 2005-06.2. Assessment and Additions:- Assessee, an HUF in grains business with agricultural income, filed a return showing total income of Rs. 47,520.- Assessment under section 143(3) raised total income to Rs. 47,83,540.- AO added unexplained cash credits under section 68, including capital balance and unsecured loans.- Disallowance of agricultural income due to lack of justification or proof.3. Validity of Return of Income:- CIT(A) found the return peculiar with discrepancies in assets and liabilities.- Assessee's explanations and evidence questioned the existence of claimed assets.- CIT(A) concluded the ROI as non-est and the assessment void under section 144.4. Appeal and Arguments:- Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s decision.- Arguments centered on the non-existence of claimed income and assets by Assessee.- Lack of opportunity for cross-examination highlighted regarding relied-upon statements.5. Decision and Dismissal:- Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing the non-filing and non-verification of the ROI.- Lack of new evidence from Revenue led to the dismissal of the appeal.- Similar decisions made for A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05 based on identical circumstances.6. Conclusion:- Revenue's appeals dismissed, along with Assessee's C.Os., due to lack of substantiated challenges to CIT(A)'s ruling.- All appeals were concluded and dismissed in the open court on 30-01-2015.
TaxTMI 