2011 (4) TMI 115 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - Individual or HUF property - In search and seizure operation, keys of the locker were found from the possession of the Assessee and in the locker K.V.P. of Rs.37.5 lakhs were found - The Assessee s contention was that it was undisclosed income of the H.U.F. and according to Assessee the H.U.F. paid the tax on that undisclosed income - The assessing authority treated the payment made by the H.U.F. to be the payment on behalf of Assessee - This issue has been considered by the appellate authority as well as by the Income Tax Tribunal - It is clear from the written statement submitted by the Assessee that the H.U.F. which has legal entity, paid the tax on undisclosed income and as such the income tax or tax on interest over K.V.P. cannot be taxed and recovered from the Assessee in his individual capacity as is sought to be recovered by the department - Decided in against of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) found in possession during a search and seizure operation should be taxed in the individual capacity or in the Hindu Undivided Family (H.U.F.) capacity.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which concluded that there was no evidence to show that the Assessee possessed the KVP either individually or in H.U.F. capacity for it to be taxed accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the H.U.F. had offered a certain amount in its investment and paid tax on it, while no other investments were found except for gold jewelry. The C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the addition in the individual capacity as the Assessee had correctly declared income and paid tax as an H.U.F.

The case involved a search and seizure operation where keys to a locker were found in the possession of the Assessee, containing KVP worth Rs.37.5 lakhs. The Assessee claimed it was undisclosed income of the H.U.F., and the H.U.F. had paid tax on it. However, the assessing authority considered it the personal income of the Assessee, leading to a dispute on the nature of the property.

Both the appellate authority and the Income Tax Tribunal analyzed the situation and concluded that the investments could not be treated as made by the individual, despite the keys being found with the Assessee and the KVP being in their name. The H.U.F. had paid tax on the undisclosed income, and thus, the tax on interest over KVP could not be recovered from the Assessee in their individual capacity. The court found no legal question in the appeal, as the order was based on factual findings and evidence, and there was no illegality in it.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court, upholding the decision that the KVP should not be taxed in the individual capacity but as part of the H.U.F. income.