2005 (3) TMI 748 - HC - Income Tax

Addition made on account of on money - sale of shops - evidence to prove - Whether, the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal are perverse or not ? - HELD THAT - Tribunal has observed that, in light of the retraction by Shri Pravinbhai Rupawala from the statement, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry in respect of shop owners. In the Assessment Order, while referring to the explanation tendered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has referred to one of the loose papers seized during the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act and recorded that the explanation was in contradiction to the notings in the seized document that these relate to Ratan Market Project containing names of shop holders, amount received from them, construction account with shop-wise details. It is, thus, apparent that when the Tribunal refers to the duty of the Assessing Officer to make further inquiries in respect of the shop owners, it is in this context. The Tribunal has also, as noticed hereinbefore, found that all the seized papers do not relate to Ratan Market Project. Thus, it is not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal had omitted to consider other material. It is equally well settled that the Court cannot set aside the Tribunal s finding of fact if there is some evidence to support that finding, even though the Court itself might have come to a different conclusion upon that evidence. In the circumstances, there being no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, which has arrived at findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, can be said to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of "on-money" in the sale of shops
- Reliance on retracted confessional statement
- Consideration of seized material in the case

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of "on-money" in the sale of shops
The dispute revolved around the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the receipt of "on-money" during the sale of shops. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the addition, but the Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal found that the confessional statement obtained was under pressure and was retracted later through a detailed affidavit. It was noted that the Assessing Officer should have conducted further inquiries regarding the shop owners involved in the alleged transactions. The Tribunal also highlighted that the material collected did not entirely relate to the assessee firm, and certain details pertained to another firm. By applying legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the statement could not be relied upon, especially in light of the retraction and other evidence.

Issue 2: Reliance on retracted confessional statement
The appellant argued that the Tribunal overlooked crucial seized material and placed excessive emphasis on the retracted affidavit, leading to a flawed decision. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Assessing Officer failed to investigate the shop owners adequately, as indicated by discrepancies in the seized documents. It was emphasized that the Tribunal considered all relevant material, including the seized papers, and the retraction of the confessional statement played a significant role in their decision-making process.

Issue 3: Consideration of seized material in the case
The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents emphasizing a comprehensive review of all evidence for and against the assessee. The Tribunal's duty was to ensure a fair consideration of all facts and evidence before reaching a conclusion. The Tribunal's finding of fact was deemed valid as long as there was supporting evidence, even if a different conclusion could have been reached. The appellant's reliance on a specific court case did not alter the Tribunal's well-reasoned decision. Ultimately, since no legal infirmity was found in the Tribunal's order, the appeals were dismissed, and no substantial question of law was deemed to arise from the Tribunal's decision.