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>Appeal partly allowed, AO's jurisdiction upheld, remittance for reevaluation. Interest charged consequential. Costs claim dismissed.</h1> <h3>Shri G. Subbaraya Setty, Bagepalli Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar</h3> The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The AO's jurisdiction under section 147 was upheld as valid. The addition of Rs. 54.05 lakhs was ... - Issues involved: Jurisdiction u/s 147, Addition of Rs. 54.05 lakhs, Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, Award of costs in prosecuting the appeal and order for refund of institution fee.Jurisdiction u/s 147:The appeal was against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-V, Bangalore, for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee contended that the AO had not validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a Notice u/s 148, making the assessment void-ab-initio. The AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) as the assessee had not filed the return of income. The AO concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) based on the return furnished, which was deemed valid. The contention of the assessee was dismissed as there was no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO.Addition of Rs. 54.05 lakhs:The assessee failed to substantiate claims regarding cash deposits in the bank account amounting to Rs. 54.05 lakhs. The Ld.CIT(A) found no evidence to support the claim that the deposits were related to a temple fund or chit fund. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to work out the taxable income using the peak credit method, considering the lack of documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws to support its decision.Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B:The Tribunal considered the charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B as consequential and dismissed this ground.Award of costs in prosecuting the appeal and order for refund of institution fee:The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for award of costs in prosecuting the appeal and refund of institution fees due to the lack of full disclosure of facts by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.In conclusion, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing the AO to reevaluate the taxable income based on peak credit method and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
