1991 (1) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment year 1983-84: Unexplained investment in construction of house property, valuation report acceptance, non-cooperation allegation, addition to income.
2. Assessment year 1985-86: Jewelry ownership, undisclosed source of acquisition, business income assessment, non-cooperation allegation.

Analysis:

Assessment Year 1983-84:
The assessee filed applications under section 266(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking direction for the Tribunal to state specific questions regarding the assessment year 1983-84. The questions raised included the justification of sustaining an addition on account of unexplained investment in a house property, the acceptance of the Department Valuation Cell's report over the assessee's valuer's report without proof, the allegation of non-cooperation, and the addition to income despite minimal business income and past savings. The Tribunal observed that questions regarding non-cooperation were not raised before it. The court noted that a raid revealed unexplained investments, and the advanced age of the assessee was not a sufficient explanation for lack of participation or evidence presentation. Consequently, the applications were dismissed.

Assessment Year 1985-86:
For the assessment year 1985-86, the questions raised related to the ownership of jewelry, undisclosed source of acquisition of a specific sum found in the house, assessment of business income, and allegations of non-cooperation leading to ex parte assessments. The Tribunal's decision to treat jewelry as belonging to the daughter-in-law, the rejection of the explanation regarding the undisclosed sum, and the assessment of business income despite past meagre earnings were challenged. The court emphasized the importance of disclosing the source of income and providing adequate explanations. The Tribunal's decision to sustain the orders despite alleged non-cooperation due to health reasons was questioned. The court highlighted the necessity of proper opportunity for hearing and the obligation to address factual questions with substantive evidence. Ultimately, the applications were dismissed, emphasizing the significance of compliance and substantiation in tax assessments.