2004 (7) TMI 37 - HC - Income Tax

substantial question of law - Whether Tribunal was right in deleting the additions made for unexplained accretion to capital account and drawings on the ground that cash represented by depreciation claimed being notional allowance was available for explaining the increase in capital account balance? - Even though the appellant-revenue has not succeeded before both the appellate authorities, he has chosen to file the present appeal, by contending that the substantial question of law as stated supra should be decided by this court. A perusal of the substantial question of law clearly discloses that the appellant is aggrieved only with regard to the factual findings rendered by the appellate authorities, much less, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. no question of law arise appeal dismissed

Issues:
1. Reconciliation of opening and closing capital balance for assessment year 1990-91.
2. Addition of drawings for personal expenses under section 69C of the Income-tax Act.
3. Appeal against the order of assessment.
4. Substantial question of law regarding unexplained accretion to capital account and drawings.

Issue 1: Reconciliation of opening and closing capital balance
The respondent, engaged in the business of plying buses, filed a return for the assessment year 1990-91 admitting a total income. The Assessing Officer asked to reconcile the opening capital with the closing balance as of March 31, 1987. Despite a reconciliation statement filed by the respondent, the Assessing Officer found it erroneous. Consequently, the Officer prepared a cash flow statement for the period and added an amount towards drawings for personal expenses under section 69C of the Income-tax Act.

Issue 2: Addition of drawings for personal expenses under section 69C
The Assessing Officer made an addition towards drawings for personal expenses as the source was not satisfactorily explained. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later held that the Assessing Officer's order was incorrect and deleted the additions. However, the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting the reconciliation statement and depreciation as a notional allowance.

Issue 3: Appeal against the order of assessment
The appellant filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, leading to the current appeal raising a substantial question of law regarding the treatment of depreciation and unexplained accretion to the capital account balance.

Issue 4: Substantial question of law regarding unexplained accretion to capital account and drawings
The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in deleting the additions based on the reconciliation statement and depreciation treatment. However, the court found that both the Commissioner and the Tribunal had rendered factual findings supporting the deletion of additions. The court emphasized that the scope of section 260A of the Income-tax Act does not allow appeals solely against factual findings. As no substantial question of law was found, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

This judgment primarily dealt with the reconciliation of capital balances, addition of personal expenses drawings, appeal against the assessment order, and a substantial question of law regarding depreciation treatment. The court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the factual findings supporting the deletion of additions and highlighting the limitations on appealing factual findings under the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →