2013 (1) TMI 337 - HC - Income Tax

Search & Seizure Undisclosed income - Assessee is a Company engaged in the manufacture of ferrous and non- ferrous castings and forgings In course of search F.D.Rs. 29.10 lakhs found in the name of the workers/employees of the assessee as well as in the names of the assessee s relatives and friends - Revenue treated the same as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee Creditworthiness of depositor Genuineness of deposits Held that - The ITAT ought to have taken up the statement of each of the 35 persons who had spoken about the deposits made by them in the associate company HHL , should have considered the same and then give a finding why the conclusion of the assessment officer in regard to them cannot be accepted. Admittedly reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. In the absence of reasons based on consideration of facts by the I.T.A.T. in the impugned order to support its conclusion as regards the F.D.Rs. of Rs. 21.60 lakhs, its order to that extent cannot be sustained. Remand back to AO As regards the F.D.Rs. to the tune of Rs.7.50 lakhs comprising Rs. 6.10 lakhs in the names of the employees of the assessee and Rs. 1.40 lakhs in the names of five relatives and friends of the Managing Director are concerned, The I.T.A.T. had given reasons for concurring with the more elaborate reasons given by the A.O. As decided in case of S.N.Mukherjee (1990 (8) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT) that an appellate authority, if it affirms an order of an original authority which contains reasons, need not give separate reasons if it agrees with the reasons contained in the order of the original authority. Therefore it s decision in regard to the FDRs of Rs. 7.50 lakhs does not warrant any interference and the substantial questions of law answered in favour of revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in applying Section 69 of the Income Tax Act and treating the F.D.Rs. as undisclosed income of the assessee.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition without considering the entire evidence on record.
3. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the deposits made by those who appeared before the assessing authority cannot be considered to be the undisclosed income of the assessee and the deposits should be treated as genuine, is perverse and untenable in law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that only Rs.7,50,000/- can be construed as undisclosed income of the assessee and deleted Rs.21,60,000/- from out of Rs.29,10,000/- held to be the undisclosed income by the assessment officer. The Tribunal agreed with the assessing officer in disbelieving the creditworthiness of the employees to make the deposits attributed to them and the genuineness of those deposits amounting to Rs.6,10,000/- and five friends and relatives of the Managing Director in respect of a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- deposited by them in HHL. However, the Tribunal did not provide specific reasons for accepting the statements of the 35 friends and relatives of the Managing Director, who claimed to have made deposits amounting to Rs.21,60,000/-, and reversed the findings of the assessing officer without proper analysis.

2. Sustaining the Addition Without Considering the Entire Evidence:
The Tribunal's order was criticized for not considering the evidence in the manner expected of an appellate court. The Tribunal made sweeping statements without specifically addressing why the statements of the 35 persons should be accepted as true and why the assessing officer's reasoning should be considered erroneous. The Tribunal's general statements lacked detailed analysis and specific reasons for its conclusions, which is required for a proper appellate review.

3. Tribunal's Finding on Deposits Being Genuine:
The Tribunal's finding that the deposits made by those who appeared before the assessing authority cannot be considered to be the undisclosed income of the assessee and should be treated as genuine was deemed perverse and untenable in law. The Tribunal did not provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that the creditworthiness of the depositors was established and that the genuineness of the deposits could not be doubted. The Tribunal's decision was not based on a detailed consideration of the evidence, leading to the conclusion that its findings were perverse.

Conclusion and Remand:
The High Court found that the Tribunal's order suffered from a serious defect as it did not properly analyze the evidence before reversing the findings of the assessing officer. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order regarding the F.D.Rs. of Rs.21,60,000/- and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider afresh the evidence on record and come to a conclusion regarding the computation of the above item vis-a-vis the income of the assessee. The Tribunal was directed to consider the matter afresh, uninfluenced by any observations in the High Court's order or the order of the I.T.T.A under appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee (I.T.T.A.No.22 of 2000) was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue (I.T.T.A.No.24 of 2000) was allowed and remanded to the extent indicated.

← Previous Next →