2012 (7) TMI 774 - HC - Income Tax

Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act - unexplained investments in shares alleged that assessees had not explained the nature and source of acquisition for the purchase of shares - grievance of the assessees herein is that without giving any adequate opportunity to explain the nature of holding of the shares arising under a family arrangement, the assessment had been held against the assessees Held that - Present assessees before this Court are parties to the family arrangement, based on which the other assessees case stood remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, in fitness of things, the proper course herein would be to set aside the orders of the Tribunal in these appeals also and remand the matter back to the Assessing Authority to consider the claim of the assessees along with the claim of the other assessees matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.32,49,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investments in shares of NEPC Micon Limited.
2. Addition of Rs.7,47,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investments in shares of NEPC Micon Limited.

Analysis:
1. The assessees, who are brothers, filed appeals against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1995-96. The assessing authority added income as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to shares of NEPC Micon Limited. The assessees failed to explain the nature and source of acquisition for the shares, leading to an adverse assessment. Appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the assessing officer's decision. The assessees contended that the assessment was unfair as they were not given adequate opportunity to explain the shares' holding under a family arrangement.

2. The assessees argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering the family arrangement under which shares were allotted, as evidenced by orders in similar cases. The Tribunal was urged to remand the assessment back to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration, similar to cases involving other relatives. The Revenue's Standing Counsel highlighted the assessees' failure to substantiate their case despite multiple opportunities before the Tribunal. The Counsel also suggested verifying if any appeal was filed in related cases.

3. The Court found the assessees' argument valid, emphasizing that the issue revolved around the source of acquisition of shares during the relevant financial year. The Tribunal agreed to remand the assessment back to the Assessing Officer to obtain precise information on the shares held during the year. Given the consistent approach in similar cases, the Court decided to set aside the Tribunal's orders and remand the matter to the Assessing Authority for a comprehensive review, considering the family arrangement and the outcomes of assessments in related cases.

4. The Court disposed of the tax case appeals, directing no costs, after observing the need for a fair assessment considering the family arrangement and the assessees' right to present their case adequately. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a proper opportunity for explanation and ensuring consistency in treatment across related cases to arrive at a just decision.