2016 (9) TMI 1303 - HC - Income Tax

Division of the appellant s income included in the assessment - survey under Section 133A - revenue urges that the decision in CIT vs. MAK Data Pvt. Ltd.(2013 (1) TMI 574 - DELHI HIGH COURT) was overlooked - Held that - During the course of hearing, the revenue had relied on MAK Data vs. CIT(2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) . In that case the survey was of the assessee s sister concern. During its course several documents which had been undisclosed by that concern were found and recovered. During the course of assessment proceedings, when the assessee was questioned about those documents it offered to surrender substantial income on the basis of which penalty proceedings were drawn. The entire focus of discussion was on whether the penalty was correctly levied and the court held that it was. We are of the opinion that the rulings of this court relied upon by the tribunal in Ravindra Kumar Jain s case (2009 (7) TMI 911 - ITAT DELHI) was appropriate. There is nothing to show any material supportive of the statement made in the course of survey proceedings was found or collected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 260A - Error by ITAT in directing division of appellant's income in assessment.

Analysis:
The primary issue before the court was the interpretation of Section 260A regarding the error by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in directing the division of the appellant's income included in the assessment. The revenue contended that the ITAT had erred in its decision, while the assessee's position was based on certain legal precedents.

The assessee had been subjected to a survey under Section 133A, during which the statement of the assessee was recorded. The tribunal relied on specific legal decisions, namely CIT vs. S Khakder Khan and CIT, Ranchi vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain. On the other hand, the revenue argued that a different judgment in CIT vs. MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. had been overlooked. This judgment emphasized that such statements could be the sole basis for completing the assessment and adding to the assessee's income.

The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides. The revenue had cited the case of MAK Data vs. CIT, where a survey of the assessee's sister concern had led to the discovery of undisclosed documents. However, the court found that the focus of that case was on the correctness of the penalty levied, rather than the division of income in the assessment. The court agreed with the tribunal's reliance on the precedent set in Ravindra Kumar Jain's case, as there was no evidence to support the revenue's claim that material found during the survey supported the division of income.

In conclusion, the court found no merit in the revenue's arguments and dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose for consideration in this case. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of legal precedents and the need for substantial evidence to support claims in income assessment cases.