2007 (6) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed income Revenue contended that assessee have not disclosed the amount of Rs. 1, 34, 32, 183 received by him and accordingly added to his income as undisclosed income Held that there was no material to show that the assessee intended to hide any part of his income and rejected revenue contention

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of 'undisclosed income' under section 158B(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of 'undisclosed income' under section 158B(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of certain deposits as undisclosed income for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The Revenue argued that the deposits were unexplained and should be treated as undisclosed income. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the amounts were received from a government agency, deposited in a bank account, and duly recorded in the regular books of account, hence not undisclosed income.

The Revenue's counsel argued that the deposits were not adequately explained by the assessee and should be considered undisclosed income. The counsel referred to the provisions of section 158BB(1)(d) and emphasized that the deposits should be included as undisclosed income since the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence. However, the respondent's senior counsel countered this argument by stating that the amounts were received as printing charges from a government agency, deposited in the bank account, and recorded in the books of account, thus not undisclosed income.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the deposits were disclosed in the regular books of account and therefore could not be considered as undisclosed income. The Tribunal agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the deposits were received through cheques, credited to the bank account, and reflected in the books of account before the search took place. The Tribunal also noted that the returns for the assessment years were filed after the search, disclosing the bank deposits, further supporting the conclusion that the deposits were not undisclosed income.

The High Court considered relevant case law but ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the deposits in question should not be treated as undisclosed income. The Court highlighted that the deposits were properly recorded before the search, and there was no evidence to suggest an intention to conceal income. The Court also noted that the transactions recorded in the bank accounts could not be subject to block assessment proceedings. Therefore, the question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.