| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1931 2014 SLD 1931 (2014) 369 ITR 49 |
Delhi High Court
W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2014, JULY 3, 2014
S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ
Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth for the Appellant. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, Abhishek Singh Baghel and Arjun Harkauli, Jr. Standing Counsel for the
Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2014, JULY 3, 2014
S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ
Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth for the Appellant. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, Abhishek Singh Baghel and Arjun Harkauli, Jr. Standing Counsel for the
Respondent
Narinder Kumar
v.
Commissioner of Income Tax -VII, Delhi
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioners are partners of a firm M/s Dewan Chand Dholan Das & Co. (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') and have filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning the Assessment Order dated 28.02.2003 and the order dated 02.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (CIT), whereby the revision petition of the assessee under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the Assessment Order was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The assessee filed its return for the Assessment Year 2000-01 on 31.10.2000 declaring a loss of Rs. 3,80,68,466/- during the previous year ending 31.03.2000. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was dispatched by the Income Tax Authorities on 30.10.2001. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, sent further notices for the purposes of the scrutiny assessment. In response to the said notices, Mr Nihal Chand, one of the then partners of the assessee firm, appeared before the Assessing Officer. He, however, showed his inability to produce any accounts or other details as sought by the Assessing Officer. He stated that there were certain disputes between the partners of the assessee firm and a suit being CS(OS) No.981/2001 had been instituted in this Court. In those proceedings, the Court had appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and sign the books of accounts relating to the businesses of the partners including the assessee firm. The books and other accounts were stated to be in the custody of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. 2.2 Since, the assessee had failed to produce the requisite books of accounts and other relevant documents supporting the return, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on 28.02.2003 under Section 144 of the Act on best judgment basis. The Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,96,47,232.25/-. The Assessing Officer observed that while the opening stock of Walnut Kernels was valued at Rs.173.81 per kg., the closing stock had…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492