2002 (11) TMI 70 - HC - Income Tax

Reference application - During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85, under appeal, the Assessing Officer found certain transactions made by the assessee with two sister concerns named (i) Sancheti Trading Co., (ii) Abhay Sales Agency, a proprietary concern of Shri Narendra Kumar, and one outsider named Shri Parasmal Kanaji to be sham and bogus just to avoid tax effect. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,73,809 treating the same as concealed income of the assessee in the shape of profit diverted in the name of Parasmal Kanaji and connected sister concerns. - no referable question of law arises. The reference application is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of transactions between the assessee and sister concerns for tax assessment.
2. Determining if transactions were genuine or benami.
3. Assessment of diversion of income and concealed profit.
4. Consideration of documentary evidence and verifiability.
5. Rejection of reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of transactions between the assessee and sister concerns for tax assessment purposes. The Assessing Officer found certain transactions to be sham and bogus, leading to the addition of Rs. 2,73,809 as concealed income of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition, emphasizing that the concerns involved were brought in to give a color of genuineness to the transactions, which were deemed to pertain to the assessee in reality.

2. The question of whether the transactions were genuine or benami is crucial in this judgment. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, noting that goods were not actually handed over to various parties and the assessee appeared to be attempting to reduce its total income through these transactions. The contention raised by the assessee regarding the independence of the sister concerns and Parasmal Kanaji was dismissed, highlighting the ulterior motive of profit diversion.

3. Another significant aspect addressed in the judgment is the assessment of diversion of income and concealed profit. The Tribunal rejected the application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for referring questions of law to the court, stating that the findings were of fact and no referable question of law arose. The Revenue argued that the order was affirming and adequately dealt with in the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order, indicating no grounds for questioning the decision.

4. The consideration of documentary evidence and verifiability played a crucial role in the case. The assessee argued that all transactions were duly accounted for and supported by necessary verifiable documentary evidence, including bills and invoices. However, the authorities contended that the transactions were benami in nature, with no evidence of actual goods exchange or legitimate expenditure incurred in the process.

5. Ultimately, the reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act was rejected by the High Court of Rajasthan. The court concluded that no referable question of law arose based on the findings and analysis presented in the lower authorities' orders. The judgment emphasized the lack of justification for challenging the decision and upheld the rejection of the reference application.