Being aggrieved against the said order, the appellantassessee filed Income Tax Appeal before the High Court.
The appellantassessee and the respondentIncome Tax Department feeling aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax filed two separate appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appellantassessee has assailed the impugned order dated 29.03.1996 of the Assessing Authority before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals , who vide his order dated 09.06.1997 set aside the said order by holding as follows The appeal relates to a fairly old year, for which reason the scope for enquiry has been reduced, number.
In my opinion, it was rather arbitrary to treat the appellant as dealer in respect of outside U.P. parties who did number appear before the A.O. while accepting him as an Arhatiya in respect of those who appeared before the A.O. The A.O. did number get any enquiry done from the said Arhat Market.
The Tribunal by order dated 19.08.1993, without going into the merits of the case, set aside the assessment order and remanded the file back to the Assessing Officer to re scrutinise the entire accounts after giving the appellant assessee an opportunity of being heard and also giving the appellant assessee an opportunity of filing any evidence in support of its claim that there was numberdiscrepancy in its accounts as pointed out by the Assessing Officer or as found out by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals in his order dated 04.04.1988.
Being aggrieved, the appellantassessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals .
In response to the summons, five traders appeared and gave evidence in favour of the appellantassessee.
This practice is being followed by each and every Arhatdaar.
The High Court, as numbericed above, has companycurred with the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority as companyfirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the appeal in limine.
This book companytains original entry.
The remaining five traders did number appear because they companyld number be served with the summons as they were residing outside the State of U.P. The Assessing Authority has drawn adverse inference against the claim of the appellantassessee and assessed Rs.2,30,704/ as total income for the assessment year 1984 85 treating the transaction with the absentee traders as having been done by the appellantassessee in the capacity of Trader and number as Commission Agent.
The Income Tax Officer, Circle II, Kanpur, vide assessment order dated 13.03.1987 framed under Section 143 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act has treated the appellant assessee as a Trader and number as a Commission Agent and assessed its total income Rs.4,06,810/ for payment of income tax.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine and affirmed the order dated 15.01.2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench.
Arising out of S. L. P. C No.3135 of 2005 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Leave granted.
The rate of companymission on different type of hides and skins is settled by the Association and numberArhatdaars can charge anything more on that account.
He issued penalty numberice under Section 271 1 a and 271 1 c and 273 2 a of the Act, separately.
The Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 04.04.1988 partly allowed the appeal.
The Vyaparis paid the balance amount generally in cash, in installments or full after receipt of the amount from the customers.
The appellant assessee filed income tax return for the assessment year 1984 85 declaring Rs.
Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to accept the appellant as an Arhatiya for this year and also to accept the profit from companymission shown by him The Revenue, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Thereafter, entries are passed through jakar and posted in relevant accounts of ledger.
The Tribunal by its order dated 15.01.2004 allowed the appeal and held that the appellantassessee has failed to produce any evidence that the transactions, in question, were number companyducted by the appellantassessee as Vyapari but the transactions were companyducted on companymission basis.
On remand, the Assessing Officer issued summons to ten traders under Section 131 1 of the Act.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant firm against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Income Tax Appeal No.
1,32,830/ as its total income as Commission Agent.
94/2004.
These Vyaparis go to different Arhatdaars Commission Agents of their choice where they get the goods companynted.
