2005 (3) TMI 91 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - receipt - Addition made of purchase of stock exchange card - Payment made to Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd - HELD THAT - If the Assessing Officer had any doubt in regard to the bona fides of the assessee nothing prevented the Assessing Officer from exercising his powers under the Act and summoning the record of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and/or directing Anandi Nath Dutta to appear before him and produce relevant record in regard to the receipt. The bare reading of the order of the Assessing Officer shows that he arrived at a conclusion primarily on imaginative basis and conjectures rather than on the basis of any record or books of account. The decision of the Assessing Officer was rightly upset by the Tribunal wherein it was clearly recorded that Ajit Kumar Dey had confirmed that he had purchased one stock exchange card of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 50, 000 and still the transaction had to be finalised and the payment was made on behalf of the assessee. This was the view taken even by the CIT (A) which has been rightly confirmed by the Tribunal. It is a settled principle of law that the Tribunal is the final fact finding forum and the High Court normally would not interfere in such findings. Furthermore the contention of the appellants is based entirely upon reappreciation of evidence and no question of law arises for consideration in the present case. Thus we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Issues:
1. Applicability of section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the case.
2. Validity of addition of Rs. 11 lakhs as unexplained investment expenditure.
3. Deletion of addition by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
4. Appeal before the Tribunal against the Commissioner's order.
5. Tribunal's decision on the case.
6. Appeal before the High Court challenging the Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the applicability of section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the case. The Commissioner of Income-tax had initially added Rs. 11 lakhs as unexplained investment expenditure based on the purchase of a ticket for Rs. 50,000 from the Calcutta Stock Exchange. However, the Tribunal held that the provisions of section 69B were not applicable as the Assessing Officer had not conducted any inquiry with the Calcutta Stock Exchange, and the assessee had provided evidence supporting the payment of only Rs. 50,000 through a broker. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the lack of verification by the Assessing Officer and absence of cogent material to support the addition.

2. The validity of the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs as unexplained investment expenditure was a crucial aspect of the case. The Assessing Officer had determined the value of the ticket at Rs. 11,50,000 and added the balance income to the assessee's total. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, upon appeal by the assessee, deleted the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs, citing evidence provided by the assessee, including a memo from the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and confirmation from the broker regarding the payment of Rs. 50,000. The Commissioner found that the Assessing Officer had not verified the facts adequately and deleted the addition based on lack of evidence.

3. The deletion of the addition by the Commissioner of Income-tax was a significant development in the case. The Commissioner, after examining the contentions of the assessee's authorized representative and the evidence presented, concluded that the Assessing Officer had not sufficiently proven that the assessee paid Rs. 11,50,000 for the ticket. The Commissioner emphasized the burden of proof on the Assessing Officer and the lack of verification from relevant parties. Consequently, the Commissioner granted relief to the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs.

4. The subsequent appeal before the Tribunal challenged the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the material on record, upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not conducted any inquiry with the Calcutta Stock Exchange and that the assessee had provided evidence supporting the payment of only Rs. 50,000 through the broker. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the lack of verification and cogent material to support the addition.

5. The Tribunal's decision on the case was crucial in determining the outcome of the appeal. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 69B were not applicable due to the lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer and the evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision of the Rajasthan High Court cited by the appellant was not applicable to the facts of this case. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Commissioner's order, highlighting the absence of proof of understatement of investment and the insufficiency of evidence to invoke section 69B.

6. The final appeal before the High Court challenged the Tribunal's decision. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence, emphasizing that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding forum. The High Court concluded that the appellant's contentions were based on reappreciation of evidence, and no question of law arose for consideration in the case.

← Previous Next →