Case Details: Ravikumar Subhash Kalsi v. CIT - [2024] 162 taxmann.com 606 (Karnataka)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- V. Srishananda, J.
- Sachin M. Mahajan, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Tirumallesh M. & Y.V. Ravi Raj
Facts of the Case
Assessee ran a vulcanizing shop. He used to collect money from landowners interested in digging a borewell. After rig owners dug the borewell, he used to pay them money as per estimated rig charges.
The assessee filed a return showing certain income. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the total amount received in the assessee’s bank account as his income and raised a demand. Assessee accepted the receipts but claimed that a substantial amount had been paid to rig owners as rig charges.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed a revision petition before the CIT under section 264. CIT rejected the revision petition, and the matter reached the Karnataka High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that it was incumbent on the part of the assessee to place clinching material on record to revise the order of the AO by exercising the power under section 264. The assessee did not place on record such clinching material to show the amount of money exactly derived, who the landowners were, who said to have dug the borewell in their lands, and what exactly the charges that have been paid by him to rig owners, except producing the Bank statement.
The power of the revisional authorities is not as wide as an appeal. Therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the assessee to place clinching material on record to revise the order of the AO by exercising the power under section 264.
The post No Relief to Assessee if He Failed to Place Clinching Evidence to Show That There Was No Income Derived by Him | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
