2011 (5) TMI 316 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - Re-opening assessment - Construction of a house - On valuation the cost of the house was determined at Rs.7, 54, 980/- whereas the assessee had claimed that the value of the house was Rs.3, 25, 000/- in his return. - Held that - Though the assessee specifically claimed that the investment was made in the previous assessment year there is no material on record to support his claim - The assessee came out with this explanation after many years - There is no material on record to show that the construction of the house had in fact started in the previous assessment year - The assessee is just trying to cover up the lacunae in his case - Therefore decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Assessment of money spent in the preceding year under section 69 of the IT Act.
3. Validity of reopening the case under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's returns for assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 were reopened under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act due to a significant disparity in the valuation of a house constructed by the appellant. The appellant admitted to incorrect valuation initially and revised the cost of the house during reassessment. The appellant claimed to have spent a portion of the revised amount in the preceding year. However, the Income Tax Officer added the entire amount to the appellant's income. The appellant's explanation was partially accepted on appeal, leading to a reduced addition. The Tribunal further reduced the addition based on its assessment, resulting in the appellant filing an appeal (ITA No.18 of 2005).

2. In a separate appeal (ITA No.17 of 2005) related to the assessment year 1997-98, similar discrepancies arose regarding the construction costs of a house. The Assessing Officer added the amount the appellant claimed to have saved to the appellant's income. The Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this decision. The common questions of law raised in both appeals revolved around whether the appellant's claimed expenditures were factual or not. The Court emphasized that these were questions of fact, not law, and upheld the reopening of assessments due to admitted discrepancies in the original returns.

3. The main legal issue addressed by the Court was whether the investment made in the preceding year could be added to the appellant's income for the assessment year in question. The appellant argued that since the investment was made in the previous year, it should not be added. However, the Court found the appellant's explanation lacking in supporting evidence and deemed it an attempt to cover inconsistencies. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on a specific judgment, stating it was not applicable to the case. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the appeals and rejected them, ruling in favor of the revenue authorities.