2013 (10) TMI 369 - HC - Income Tax

Nature, Source and genuineness of income - As per AO assessee failed to prove the source and genuineness of income hence taxed the same as undisclosed income u/s 68 - Labour income business of giving machinery for labour work - Held that - it is not as if the amount is found to have been only credited in the books of the assessee maintained for the relevant previous year but the assessee has shown the same to be income from business for the assessment year in question - Question of invoking the provisions of section 68 would not arise at all. Section 68 of the Act does not permit changing of head of income already disclosed. Assessee was exploiting his land and machinery by putting the same to use for making chips from boulders. That the labour income had been derived by exploitation of the commercial asset of the assessee and as such is a business income Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of labor income as income from undisclosed sources
2. Allowance of interest expenditure as business expenditure

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The High Court considered the appeal against the Tribunal's judgment regarding the addition of labor income as income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal had found that the assessee was exploiting land and machinery for business purposes, making the income derived from labor a business income. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had been in the business of stone crushing for over 30 years and was providing machinery for labor work. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business involved contractors bringing their own rubble and labor to crush stones, with the assessee charging a fee for machinery usage. The Tribunal concluded that the income derived from labor was indeed business income, not from undisclosed sources. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the findings were based on evidence and did not involve any legal errors.

Issue 2:
Regarding the allowance of interest expenditure as business expenditure, the Tribunal had already determined that the assessee's income should be taxed as business income, not from undisclosed sources. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition related to interest expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer had pointed out that a specific interest amount had not been paid to a bank and was not allowable under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of this unpaid interest amount but deleted the rest of the interest expenditure. The High Court found that this decision was a necessary corollary to the conclusion on the first issue and did not raise any legal questions. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the labor income was business income, not from undisclosed sources. Additionally, the High Court found that the treatment of interest expenditure was in line with the determination of the income source. The appeal was dismissed based on these findings.