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>Appeals Dismissed in Bitumen Scam Case</h1> <h3>Mahesh Kumar Agarwal @ Mahesh Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT, Central Circle-4, Patna</h3> Mahesh Kumar Agarwal @ Mahesh Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT, Central Circle-4, Patna - [2018] 408 ITR 119 (Pat) Issues Involved:1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding addition of income from other sources.2. Substantial questions of law framed for the appeals.3. Allegations related to the 'Bitumen Scam' in the Road Construction Department, State of Bihar.4. Identification of M/s Pawan Carrier as an agent of the appellant-assessee.5. Justification of the assessing authority's addition of shortfall in Bitumen delivery as income of the appellant-assessee.6. Examination of the legality and judicial actions of the assessing officer and appellate authorities.7. Failure to conduct proper enquiries regarding the status of M/s Pawan Carrier.8. Assessment of the orders' validity in enforcing compliance by M/s Pawan Carrier and concerned parties.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeals were filed challenging the Tribunal's order adding income from other sources. Substantial questions of law were framed, including issues regarding the nature of M/s Pawan Carrier, justification of assessing authority's actions, and the legality of ignoring crucial facts.2. The case involved the infamous 'Bitumen Scam' in the Road Construction Department of Bihar, with allegations of non-delivery of contracted Bitumen. The appellant derived income from a transportation business and salary, facing accusations related to the shortfall in Bitumen delivery.3. M/s Pawan Carrier was identified as an agent of the appellant-assessee, responsible for executing contracts on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal found that M/s Pawan Carrier was introduced by the appellant to lift Bitumen, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was involved in the unauthorized acts.4. The assessing authority's addition of the shortfall in Bitumen delivery as income of the appellant was justified, as the appellant was held responsible for the actions of its agent, M/s Pawan Carrier. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing relevant legal precedents.5. Despite claims that payments received by M/s Pawan Carrier absolved the appellant of liability, it was established that the appellant's authorization made M/s Pawan Carrier an agent, binding the appellant to the consequences of non-supply of Bitumen.6. The assessing officer and appellate authorities acted judiciously in considering the evidence and concluding that the appellant was liable for the actions of M/s Pawan Carrier. The failure to produce the proprietor of M/s Pawan Carrier did not result in a miscarriage of justice.7. The legality of the assessing officer's actions in not conducting thorough enquiries into M/s Pawan Carrier's status was questioned. However, the Tribunal's findings based on available evidence were deemed appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.8. Overall, the judgment upheld the assessing authority's decision to add the shortfall in Bitumen delivery as income of the appellant, considering the appellant's role in authorizing M/s Pawan Carrier's actions. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the orders of assessment and the appellate authorities.
TaxTMI 