DIGAMBAR BHAURAO PATIL (HOTALKAR) PROP. GANGARAMJI GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY NAIGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (2), NANDED

Mr. Chandak, the learned counsel holding for Mr. D. S. Ladda,   the   learned   counsel   for   appellant   submits   that,   the appellant is engaged in the business of Ginning and Pressing and is   proprietor   of   Gangaramji   Ginning   and   Pressing   Factory, Naigaon,   Tq.   Naigaon,   Dist.   Nanded.     The   learned   counsel submits that, the appellant had filed regular return of income for the Assessment Years 2007­2008 and 2008­2009, which is duly received by the office of Income Tax Officer.   The respondent thereafter issued notice U/Sec. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “said Act”) for filing of return in appropriate form. Thereafter, within fifteen days, the respondent issued further notice U/Sec. 148 of the said Act thereby proposed to assess the income U/Sec. 147 of the said Act for the assessment years 2007­ 2008  and 2008­2009. The learned  counsel submits  that, the appellant at the relevant time was undergoing kidney treatment. The business and office matters personally could not be looked into and they were managed through consultant, manager and the employees.

The learned counsel submits that, in response to the notice e­return   of   income   was   filed.     The   petitioner   declared   total income of Rs. 4,18,543/­ for the assessment year 2007­2008 and Rs. 6,50,175/­ for the assessment year 2008­2009. The learned

The learned counsel further submits that, the appellant being aggrieved by the said order preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).  The appellant submitted revised   financial   statements,   balance   sheet,   profit   and   loss account,   etc.     So   also   explained   the   circumstances.     The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessing officer to forward his   report.     Pursuant   thereto   assessing   officer   forwarded   his report. The Commissioner (Appeals) issued notice U/Sec. 251(1) of the said Act.   Thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed   the   appeals.     For   the   assessment   year   2007­2008   it confirmed the order of the assessing officer to the extent of Rs. 70,000/­   only,   whereas   for   the   assessment   year   2008­2009   it

The learned counsel further submits that, notice U/Sec. 147 of the said Act is per­se illegal.  The regular returns filed U/Sec. 139 of the said Act were not assessed by the office. As returns are not being assessed, the department could not have issued notice U/Sec. 147 of the said Act.  To substantiate said contention the the assessment of return was pending, the proceedings U/Sec. 148 of the said Act was initiated and same is not permissible. According to the learned counsel, even though these grounds were   not   raised   before   the   Commissioner   (Appeals)   and   the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, this being a question of law can be considered by this Court.

Mr.   Sharma,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent submits that, U/Sec. 143 of the said Act, if no intimation has been given, then it is deemed that, return has been accepted. The learned counsel submits that, the appellant at no point of time   raised   this   objection   before   the   assessing   officer   or   the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Apellate Tribunal.  For the first time has raised this objection in the present appeals.  The same is   not   permissible.     The   appeal   against   the   judgment   of   the Tribunal can only be entertained on substantial question of law U/Sec. 268 of the said Act.   The learned counsel submits that, though under Rule 46­A of the Income Tax Rules under certain circumstances additional evidence is permissible, however, it is not   permissible   to   rewrite   books   of   accounts   and   statement afresh.   The appellant had submitted fresh accounts and not additional   evidence.     The   same   is   rightly   dealt   with   by   the

The appellant after having received notice U/Sec. 147 and 148 of the said Act submitted to the juri iction of the authority and did not raise any objection at the relevant point of time and allowed the proceedings to proceed.   The appellant submitted fresh   accounts   before   the   Commissioner   (Appeals).     The cognizance   of   which   was   also   taken.     The   purpose   of   the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess the correct tax liability.  All the material placed by the appellant has been considered by the authorities.   Upon consideration of the said material, the authorities have arrived at conclusion.  We cannot   enter   into   the   factual   dispute   in   the   present   appeal, unless it is shown that there is manifest illegality or on facts the finding is perverse.  No such case appears to have been made out in the present matters.  The bone of contention of the appellant

In the light of the above, no substantial question of law arises, as such, the appeals are dismissed.  No costs. [ K. L. WADANE, J. ]                     [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Jan. 17