Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2865 2008 SLD 2865 (2008) 298 ITR 16 (2007) 163 TAXMAN 1
Rajasthan High Court
D.B. IT APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2006 NOVEMBER 15, 2006
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS AND RAJESH BALIA, JJ.
Suresh Ojha for the Appellant. K.K. Bissa for the
Respondent.

Malu Khan Mahendra Singh Yasin Khan & Party v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Law:

Section:

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Best assessment - Assessee was awarded a Samman Patra Card under scheme, issued by CBDT for honouring taxpayers, who were highest taxpayers - Under scheme card holders might not be subjected to scrutiny for a period of three years - Subsequently, assessee's case was subjected to scrutiny and best assessment was made - Tribunal found that exemption from scrutiny for a period of three years under scheme was not absolute and held that scrutiny was proper as it was conducted after observing safe guards envisaged in scheme - Whether, on facts, Tribunal's order could not be interfered with - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was connected with the trade of liquor contractors. The assessee was awarded a Samman Patra Card under the scheme issued by CBDT for honouring the taxpayers from the categories of business, profession and salaried people who were highest taxpayers having income above the minimum level prescribed for a continuous period stated in the scheme. The scheme,inter alia, carried incentives. One of them was that the assessment of Samman Patra Card holders might not be subjected to scrutiny for a period of three years. Subsequent to the year of honouring the assessee with the Samman Patra, his case was subjected to scrutiny, and on finding that the details of sales as well as certain expenses in the books of account of the assessee were not verifiable, the same were rejected and the best assessment was made. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) maintained the marginal additions as well as sustained the disallowance of loss to some extent. The Tribunal rejected the plea, to take out the case from scrutiny, finding that the exemption from scrutiny for a period of three years under the scheme was not absolute, and there being no ground that prior approval of the Commissioner was not obtained, the holding of scrutiny was found to be proper. On appeal : HELD It was true that in ordinary course, the scrutiny of the taxpayer who had been honoured under the aforesaid scheme would not have taken place for three subsequent years but, at the same time, it was equally true that the immunity from scrutiny for a period of three…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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