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 rules in favor of assessee for assessment year 1988-89, adjusting income estimations and interest levy</h1> <h3>MOHINDER PAL SINGH. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.</h3> MOHINDER PAL SINGH. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER. - TTJ 053, 061, Issues:1. Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of deposits in the bank account and purchase of a car.2. Estimation of income from trucks for the assessment year.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1988-89 raised general grounds along with a specific challenge regarding the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 made on account of deposits in the bank account and the purchase of a car. The Assessing Officer had noted deposits in the Canara Bank without satisfactory explanations from the assessee. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the dates of withdrawals and deposits but found that the assessee had sufficient funds from contract work and sale proceeds to explain the deposits. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue authorities, stating that the deposits were not unexplained income. The ground succeeded, and the addition was deleted.Issue 2:The appeal also addressed the estimation of income from trucks, where the Assessing Officer had estimated income based on assumptions due to the lack of maintained account books. The Tribunal considered the past assessment history and the nature of the assessee's business as a contractor. It concluded that the trucks were used for both contract work and earning hiring charges. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to determine the income from each truck at Rs. 20,000, considering past assessments and the nature of the business. The ground related to truck income was disposed of accordingly.The appeal also touched upon the charging of interest under sections 139 and 217, where the CIT(A) rejected the plea without considering the grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue on the levy of interest on its merits, following the Supreme Court decision. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed based on the detailed analysis and conclusions drawn for each issue raised in the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
