IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
--------
MA No.316 of 2009
MURRAH LIVE STOCK AGENCY THRU. ITS PARTNER SANDEEP
MALIK…………………………………………. APPELLANT
Versus
DEPUTY COMM.OF INCOME TAX………….RESPONDENT
With
MA No.335 of 2009
MURRAH LIVI STOCK AGENCY THROUGH ITS PARTNERSANDEEP
MALLICK…………………………………………… .APPELLANT
Versus
DEPUTY COMM.OF INCOME TAX……………….. RESP0NDENT
WITH
MA No.337 of 2009
MURRAH LIVE STOCK AGENCY THRU.ITS PARTNER
SANDEEP MALIK………………………………………APPELLANT
Versus
DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX…………..RESPONDENT
With
MA No.338 of 2009
MURRAH LIVE STOCK AGENCY THRU.ITS PARTNER SANDEEP
MALIICK …………………………………………………APPELLANT
Versus
DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX…………………. …RESPONDENT
with
MA No.339 of
MURRAH LIVE STOCK AGENCY THRU. ITS PARTNER
SANDEEP MALIK…. ……………………APPELLANT
Versus
DEPUTY COMM.OF INCOME TAX… …………….RESPONDENT
———–
7 22-1-2011 These appeals are admitted for hearing on the
following questions of law ;
(1) Whether the view taken by the learned Tribunal
2
that in the context of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act it is
enough if some materials existed to enable the Assessing
Officer to form reason to believe that any income chargeable
to tax has escaped assessment and subsequent developments
showing those the reasons to be without any basis cannot be
looked into, is in accordance with law or not.
(2) Whether in the facts of the case the Assessing
Officer was justified in estimating income at the rate of 20%
of gross turnover and whether the Tribunal was justified in
accepting such estimate in preference to estimate at the rate of
8% made by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ).
(3) Whether interest has been determined rightly on
the basis of re-assessed income and whether it should have
been only on the basis of original assessed income.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
( Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)
Naresh