2010 (2) TMI 646 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - Scrutiny - Block assessment - Undisclosed income - unexplained investment of share capital in the names of the employees of the assessee is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to state as to whether any investigation was carried out with regard to the persons who had submitted the share application money - In the instant case except three persons all other persons have admitted that they have paid towards subscription of the shares It therefore cannot be held that there has been no explanation offered with regard to the investment received by way of share capital taking into account the fact that the persons had admitted that payment of the share subscription money except three persons - Decided in the favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to Tribunal's order by Revenue on undisclosed income determination for block period.

Analysis:
1. The respondent-assessee, a hotel group in Bangalore, had undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer for the block period. The undisclosed income was categorized into three heads: unexplained investment in share capital, excess unexplained cash found during search, and unexplained trade advances. The Assessing Officer held that the share capital investments were bogus credits and assessed the total income accordingly.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal by the assessee, leading to an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its order dated March 31, 2005, allowed the appeal, prompting the Revenue to file the current appeal. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue included the treatment of share application money, unexplained cash, and trade advances as undisclosed income.

3. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer's decision to tax the three items as undisclosed income was justified and should have been upheld. The explanations provided by the assessee were deemed untenable. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the share application money, if received from alleged bogus shareholders, should not be considered undisclosed income. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the orders of the lower authorities was supported.

4. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, found that the share capital investments made by employees of the assessee were not adequately investigated. The Court referenced previous judgments to support the view that share application money, if received from alleged bogus shareholders, should not be treated as undisclosed income. However, the Court noted a lack of legal and valid reasons in the Tribunal's order regarding the other two items.

5. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the issues related to excess unexplained cash found during search and unexplained trade advances. The Court did not answer the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue on these issues, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning based on the material on record.

This detailed analysis covers the various aspects of the legal judgment, addressing the issues raised by the Revenue and the responses provided by the assessee, ultimately leading to the High Court's decision to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for further consideration.