9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 611 - HC - Income TaxAdditions in the block assessment - undisclosed income - source of income not proved - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to CIT v. Manoj Jain 2005 (11) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT and CIT v. Jupiter Builders (P) Ltd. 2006 (9) TMI 127 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In both these decisions it has been held by this court that since Chapter XIV-B of the Act is a self-contained code with regard to assessment of search cases no addition can be made on the basis of a DVO report when no evidence has been found during the course of the search to establish that the assessee has paid more than the disclosed consideration in purchase of the property. In the present case apart from anything else the assessing officer has not even referred the matter to the DVO and therefore there is absolutely no basis on which the addition has been made to the income of the assessee. We are therefore in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the addition could not have been made in the block assessment in respect of the assessee. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is disposed of.
Issues:
1. Addition of &8377; 26,10,500 in bank accounts. 2. Addition of &8377; 4,95,045 as commission. 3. Addition of &8377; 8,51,000 in director's assessment. 4. Dispute over &8377; 4 lakhs payment. 5. Addition of &8377; 17 lakhs for property investment. Issue 1: Addition of &8377; 26,10,500 in bank accounts: The Tribunal ruled that the amount disclosed in the bank accounts cannot be considered undisclosed income, even if not corroborated by the books of accounts. It emphasized that for block assessment, disclosure in bank accounts is sufficient, and failure to explain the source of income does not automatically make it undisclosed. The assessing officer's doubts regarding the source of income should be addressed in a regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The Tribunal found no evidence during the search to prove the credits were undisclosed income, thus dismissing the revenue's appeal. Issue 2: Addition of &8377; 4,95,045 as commission: The Tribunal's deletion of the &8377; 4,95,045 addition was challenged by the revenue, claiming a potential double assessment. The Tribunal's lack of findings on the expenditure of &8377; 1,74,911 led the High Court to remand the matter for further examination. The Court ruled against the assessee, stating that the amount minus the expenditure should be taxed in the assessee's hands. Issue 3: Addition of &8377; 8,51,000 in director's assessment: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that no further addition was warranted in the assessee's hands since the amount was covered by the director's peak statement, accepted and taxed accordingly. The revenue's argument challenging the inclusion of the amount in the director's peak statement was dismissed due to lack of timely objection. Issue 4: Dispute over &8377; 4 lakhs payment: Regarding the disputed &8377; 4 lakhs payment, the Tribunal found the amount disclosed in the books of accounts and bank accounts, leading to its deletion from the assessee's income. The Court emphasized that disclosure, not explanation of income source, is crucial for block assessment, dismissing the revenue's appeal. Issue 5: Addition of &8377; 17 lakhs for property investment: The assessing officer's addition of &8377; 17 lakhs for alleged property investment was overturned by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence or DVO report supporting the valuation, concluding that no basis existed for the addition. Citing relevant case law, the Court agreed with the Tribunal that the addition could not be justified in the block assessment. No substantial question of law was found in this issue. In conclusion, the High Court addressed various issues concerning additions to the assessee's income in the block assessment. It emphasized the importance of disclosure in bank accounts, the need for proper assessments based on evidence, and the lack of substantiation for certain additions made by the assessing officer. The Court upheld some decisions of the Tribunal while remanding one issue for further examination, ultimately disposing of the appeal.
|
