Case Law Details
CASE LAWS DETAILS
DECIDED BY: HIGH COURT OF MADRAS,
IN THE CASE OF: CIT Vs. Sudarshan Kumar Rungta, APPEAL NO: Tax Case (Appeal) No. 630 of 2009, DECIDED ON July 20, 2009
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
The brief facts are that the assessee herein is a proprietary concern. The assessment relates to the assessment year 2003-. 2004. The assessment order came to be made on 28.3.2006. At the time when the assessment order came to be passed, the assessing authority himself has noted that the assessee’s proprietary concern was converted into a private limited company named ” Raunaq Steel Trading Pvt. Ltd.”. As a proprietary concern, since sale suppression was found out, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny as a survey related assessment. Be that as it may, when the assessee’s return of in come dated 28.11.2003 was analysed, a notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 16.12.2003. The assessee’s representative was heard. A sum of Rs. 2,94,16,923/- was reflected in the accounts by way of credit entries under the caption ‘sundry creditors’. At that point of time, there was no response from the assessee for producing the person, who extended such credit in the form of security deposit to the tune of Rs.2 crores and Commissioner of Income Tax. Chennai in mother credit of Rs. 42 71373/-. The assessing authority also noted that by proceeding dated 22-3-2006, the assessment of the company was reopened for the very same assessment year 2003-04 for considering the investment of share capital. The assessing authority, therefore, held that the issue can be considered as and when the assessment year 2003- 2004 for the company is completed. As far as the remaining sum of Rs. 51,45,550/- was concerned, the same was added, as the assessee failed to prove the same as unsecured loans. The income was thus arrived at a sum of Rs. 58,10,980.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
