2013 (10) TMI 316 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained income u/s 68 - Held that - The Tribunal while appreciating the factual matrix came on record observed that after the summons were issued U/s 131 of the Act,1961 to the applicant/creditors and their confirmation letters were filed and the companies were assessed to tax being private limited companies the existence of their separate legal entity ordinarily could not have been challenged more so when the identity of existence of the investor is not disputed and accordingly upheld the view of Commissioner (Appeals), at the same time further observed that merely on the basis of oral statement of Kripa Shanker Sharma recorded before the search authorities that the assessee provided accommodation entries was not sufficient for the income to be assessed in the hands of the assessee - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Appeal under Section 260A - Assessment of income based on statement - Accommodation entries - Construction activities - Sub-contract income - Investment in building construction - Search under Section 132 - Evidence gathered - Tax consultation racket - Unsecured loans - Share application money - Long term capital gains - Sec. 68 of the Act - Commissioner (Appeals) order - Factual statements examination - Bank account copies - Summons under Section 131 - Private limited companies - Separate legal entity - Cross objection - Tribunal's decision - Oral statement assessment - Substantial question of law - Court's interference.

Detailed Analysis:

The High Court dealt with three appeals arising from a common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which assessed Rs. 5 Lacs in the hands of the assessee based on a statement by Kripa Shanker Sharma. The Tribunal noted that Sharma's statement was not confronted to the assessee with no documentary evidence supplied, leading to the income assessment deserving deletion.

The assessee was involved in construction activities, disclosing income from sub-contracts and building construction investments. A search under Section 132 revealed a tax consultation racket involving accommodation entries like gifts, loans, share application money, and long term capital gains. The assessing officer considered the assessee a middleman in this scheme, invoking Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) examined all factual statements, finding that the bank account copies showed transactions with group companies, including M/s. B.C. Purohit, of which the assessee was considered a member.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that the separate legal entity of the private limited companies involved could not be challenged. It also found that Sharma's oral statement alone was insufficient to assess Rs. 5 Lacs in the assessee's hands for providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objection and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

After hearing the parties, the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring its interference. Consequently, the appeals were deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to income assessment, accommodation entries, construction activities, tax consultation racket, legal entity of companies, and the sufficiency of oral statements for income assessment. The decision highlighted the importance of factual evidence and legal procedures in determining tax liabilities, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.