2013 (12) TMI 1168 - HC - Income Tax

Substantive addition for the block period u/s 158(B) - Held that - Addition of huge amount without any substantive basis and material available on record is unsustainable - Exercise of powers u/s 145 without disclosing cogent reason is unsustainable - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to concurrent orders passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal, Indore under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment of a private limited company engaged in real estate development. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in a total income discrepancy between the declared and assessed amounts. The appellant contended that errors were made in deleting certain additions by the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority, particularly concerning a substantive addition for the block period 01/04/1995 to 27/02/2002. The appellant argued that the reasons for invoking Section 145 were not indicated properly, leading to unsustainable substantive additions.

The High Court scrutinized the reasons provided by the authorities and found that the Assessing Officer had made a substantive addition under Section 158(B)(B) as protective addition, which was deemed impermissible under the law. It was noted that a similar addition for the same assessee had been quashed previously. The High Court observed that the substantial addition made without a solid basis and without disclosing cogent reasons was unsustainable under Section 145. The Tribunal had also considered these aspects and concluded that the addition of over one crore rupees was unjustified, especially considering past decisions where such additions were deleted. The High Court found that the concurrent orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were based on the assessment procedures followed by the authorities and did not exhibit perversity or error warranting interference.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law merited consideration. The decision was based on the assessment procedures, the reasons provided by the Appellate Authorities, and the lack of grounds for interference in the concurrent orders passed by the authorities.