2007 (4) TMI 708 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of evidence u/s 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Opportunity to rebut evidence u/s 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. Genuineness of the firm.
4. Identity of Smt. Darshna Devi.
5. Existence of a genuine firm for the assessment year 1973-74.

Summary:

Issue 1: Admission of Evidence u/s 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Appeals) could admit evidence of the death of Smt. Darshna Devi without giving any opportunity to the Income-tax Officer to rebut the same, as required under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found that the death certificate was produced in the presence of the Income-tax Officer, who did not raise any objection.

Issue 2: Opportunity to Rebut Evidence u/s 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962
The Tribunal concluded that the Income-tax Officer was given a reasonable opportunity to examine/rebut the evidence in the form of a death certificate of Smt. Darshna Devi. The Tribunal noted that the death certificate was in focus during the last date of hearing and the Income-tax Officer did not raise any objection, thus satisfying the opportunity envisaged by rule 46A.

Issue 3: Genuineness of the Firm
The Tribunal held that the finding of the CIT (Appeals) regarding the genuineness of the firm was not questioned before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel for the revenue could not point out any material on record to show that the issue regarding the genuineness of the firm was raised before the Tribunal.

Issue 4: Identity of Smt. Darshna Devi
The Tribunal found that Smt. Darshna Devi and Smt. Darshna Devi Gupta were two different persons. The Tribunal observed that the revenue's case was based on the incorrect presumption that these two individuals were the same, which was disproven by the evidence on record.

Issue 5: Existence of a Genuine Firm for the Assessment Year 1973-74
The Tribunal concluded that a genuine firm was in existence for the assessment year 1973-74. The Tribunal noted that the death certificate and other evidence supported the existence of a genuine firm, and the registration granted under section 185(1)(a) was rightly continued.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's findings on all issues, ruling in favor of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.