2011 (12) TMI 244 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained Investment Investment in capital account of partnership firm alleged to be out of undisclosed income Held that - The Tribunal has affirmed order of CIT wherein it has been recorded that the five persons were the genuine partners, in view of the fact that all such persons have filed their income tax returns. Thus, addition made as investment from the undisclosed sources is not sustainable. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of Varinder Singh s case have been affirmed by Court - Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order under Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2000-01.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 13,15,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the capital account.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,49,071/- assessed on account of interest on unexplained capital investment.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01. The primary issues raised by the Revenue were the deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 13,15,000/- and Rs. 1,49,071/- related to unexplained investments and interest on capital investments, respectively.

The assessing officer had found that the assessee introduced Rs. 13,15,000/- in the names of five persons, which was considered income from undisclosed sources. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax, in appeal, noted that the alleged partners were filing their income tax returns in Delhi, indicating their genuine partnership status. The Tribunal, in its order dated 25.9.2009, relied on a previous case (Varinder Singh's case) to affirm the deletion of the additions. The Tribunal found that the basis of the addition by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable, and the interest thereon was unjustified and thus deleted.

The Court emphasized that the findings of fact by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, based on the partners' tax returns and recorded statements, did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Court also mentioned a separate order in Varinder Singh's case, which further supported the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the Court held that the first substantial question of law did not arise for consideration, and the second question was consequential to the first, hence not requiring consideration.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions of Rs. 13,15,000/- and Rs. 1,49,071/-, as the basis for the additions was found to be unsustainable, and the partners were deemed genuine based on their tax filings and recorded statements.