SHRI RAJKUMAR DAMMANI,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 90/BIL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 October 2018AY 2011-129 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the profit estimated by the Assessing Officer at 3% was too high and the assessee's offer of 0.30% was too low. It directed that 0.5% net profit on undisclosed transactions would meet the ends of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not disclose two bank accounts in his balance sheet, which were used for cheque discounting business. The Assessing Officer estimated profit at 3% on these undisclosed transactions, while the assessee had offered 0.30%.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct estimation of profit on undisclosed bank transactions related to cheque discounting business. The Tribunal had to determine an appropriate profit rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kr. Agrawal, CA, Ms. Laxmi Sharma, CA, Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

24.02.

2016 of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Raipur (CG) relating to assessment year

2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal by the assessee read as under :-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the ‘undisclosed bank transactions’ as ‘trading transactions of its regular course of business’, while the assessee has actually done the ‘cheque discounting business’ and he has only earned commission income from such undisclosed bank transactions.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sus

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →