TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h (in short, "the Tribunal") for the assessment year 2001-02. It was admitted on 16.3.2009 to consider following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the Assessing Officer made an assessment by estimation of income arbitrarily without any reasons or findings? ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in estimation of income which is 22 seats per bus without any formula and basis? iii) Whether the findings of the Assessing Officer totally based on assumption and presumption are sustainable in the eyes of law?" 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant was the proprietor of M/s Rajdeep Bus Service, Khanna and M/s Ajmer F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per month. The rebate out of bus fare equal to 36 days (12x3) was allowed and the total receipts were thus assessed at Rs. 95,46,264/-. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 18,32,740/- was made to the returned income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Vide order dated 8.2.2005, Annexure P.2, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 18.32 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of occupancy of 26 seats per bus and directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income as per the books of account which was 19 seats per bus. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 25.9.2008, Annexure P.3, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and estimated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f account, the assessee credited amount of Rs. 19000/- to Rs. 21,500/- as receipt from bus fare on daily basis. However, the Assessing Officer proposed to adopt the total occupancy at the rate of 50% of total capacity of 52 seats available per bus and sought to make addition of Rs. 28,70,316/-. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee and after considering the reply submitted by the assessee, addition of Rs. 18,32,740/- was made to the returned income. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the occupancy of 19 seats of each bus. The revenue challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. It was categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the moot question was the justification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO at the time of assessment 329 days. 4. Total reciepts during the year (22 seats occupancy) 1116x22x329 Rs. 80,77,608/- 5. Less reciept shown by the assessee Rs. 77,13,524/- 6. Addition made as per ITAT's order Rs. 3,64,084/- Total income after appeal effect Rs. 4,75,024/- Say Rs. 4,75,030/- A perusal of the above shows that only an addition of Rs. 4,75,030/- has been made against the income of Rs. 1,10,940/- declared by the assessee. 7. Learned cousnel for the appellant-assessee relied upon plethora of judgments in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M.Esufali H.M.Abdulali, (1973) 90 ITR 271, State of Kerala vs. C.Velukutty, (1966) 60 ITR 239 (S....