2012 (9) TMI 96 - HC - Income Tax

Non reflecting the income as shown in the TDS certificates - miscellaneous application - Held that - Dismissal of Miscellaneous application holding that so far as the issue of TDS certificates are concerned, nothing had been submitted before the Bench, during the course of hearing, on 29.06.2009 leading to the order dated 04.08.2009. The Tribunal also held that as the appellant had already filed an appeal against the order dated 04.08.2009 to this court and the same is pending, it would not be appropriate for them to readjudicate the matter. Remanding the matter to the AO would not serve any purpose, as the appellant had consciously claimed credit of tax deduction on the basis of the TDS certificates and even enclosed the same along with the return of income, but failed to show it, as a part of the income. This entire excess income of Rs.19.22lacs would have not come to light but for the AO verifying each TDS Certificate. The return of income was duly signed and verified by the Directors of the company. In view of the above facts, the Tribunal concluded that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer - against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1) Tribunal's refusal to remand the matter back to the Respondent
2) Treatment of TDS reflected in alleged fake certificates in appellant's account
3) Validity of fake TDS certificates in determining appellant's income
4) Perversity of Tribunal's finding and evidence presented by the Appellant

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's refusal to remand the matter back to the Respondent, arguing that despite remanding other issues, the Tribunal declined to do so in this case due to the matter's age. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had consciously claimed tax deduction based on TDS certificates but failed to reflect the income in its returns. The Tribunal concluded that remanding the matter would not serve any purpose as the excess income of Rs.19.22 lacs only came to light due to the Assessing Officer's verification of each TDS certificate. The Tribunal's decision was based on the facts and deemed reasonable, as the appellant had enclosed the TDS certificates with the return of income but failed to declare the income, which was duly signed by the company's Directors.

Issue 2:
Regarding the treatment of TDS amounts reflected in alleged fake certificates, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal based on the discrepancy between the income shown in the TDS certificates and the actual income disclosed in the returns. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also noted this inconsistency, leading to the addition of Rs.19.22 lacs to the appellant's income for the assessment year. The Tribunal found no fault in the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing that the TDS certificates were submitted by the appellant and signed by its Directors, indicating no infirmity in the assessment.

Issue 3:
The appellant contended that the two TDS certificates from specific companies were fake, arguing that they should be disregarded entirely in determining the appellant's income. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the certificates were submitted by the appellant along with the returns and signed by its Directors. The Tribunal found no reason to question the validity of the certificates based on the evidence presented.

Issue 4:
In addressing the perversity of the Tribunal's finding, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to rectify the order and introduce additional evidence. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that no new evidence had been presented during the hearing leading to the original order. The Tribunal's finding was deemed factual, and no legal question arose from the appellant's claims, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal on all four issues.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as it did not raise any substantial questions of law, upholding the Tribunal's decision and finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.