2014 (2) TMI 426 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification or order u/s 254(2) of the Act Mistake apparent from record - Held that - The onus placed upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act to prove the cash credits are well settled Relying upon CIT Vs. K. Chinnathamban 2007 (7) TMI 204 - SUPREME Court - the onus of proving deposits lies upon the person in whose name the deposit stands - the Tribunal has decided the issue by considering the facts of the case in a detailed manner, since the facts that prevailed was peculiar and the issue was purely a question of fact - thus, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal suffers from mistake on account of non-discussion of the case laws relied upon by the assessee and which were considered as not applicable by the Tribunal thus, the short fall, if any, in not discussing about the relevancy/irrelevancy of the case law cannot be made good u/s 254(2) of the Act. Opportunity of being heard Held that - The manner and method of investigation is decided by the tax authorities and in fact, it is their prerogative to decide about the modalities - the Tribunal also did not find any infirmity in the decision reached by them - it is the responsibility of the assessee to disprove the view entertained by the assessing officer on the basis of materials gathered by him - the bank authorities can depose about the apparent only, whereas, the case of the revenue is that the apparent is not real - the revenue has substantiated their contentions with adequate materials - Thus, the evidences considered by the Tribunal cannot be considered as material and the true facts could have been ascertained by examining the bank manager If the error sought to be pointed out has to be established in a long drawn process of reasoning with number of arguments, then they cannot be considered as a mistake apparent from record there was no merit in the petitions filed by the assessee Decided against Assesssee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's failure to provide reasons for non-applicability of certain case laws.
2. Allegation of non-discussion of relevant case laws by the Tribunal.
3. Omission of consideration of specific legal decisions and facts by the Tribunal.
4. Allegation of non-adjudication of certain grounds by the Tribunal.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Request for summoning a bank manager and non-consideration of relevant legal decisions.
7. Alleged mistakes in findings and decisions by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessee claimed that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for rejecting the applicability of certain case laws. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that the case laws were considered but deemed irrelevant to the specific facts of the case. The Tribunal highlighted the duty to record reasons for decisions but emphasized that only relevant case laws with a nexus to the issue under consideration need to be discussed.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal's decision not to discuss all case laws relied upon by the assessee was challenged. However, the Tribunal clarified that it thoroughly examined the facts, arguments, and relevant case laws. It emphasized that the case laws cited were found inapplicable to the present case due to its unique circumstances, particularly regarding the ownership of a bank account.

Issue 3:
The assessee alleged that the Tribunal omitted to consider specific legal decisions and facts. The Tribunal addressed each contention, explaining its rationale and justifying its conclusions based on the evidence presented during the assessment proceedings.

Issue 4:
Regarding the alleged non-adjudication of certain grounds, the Tribunal clarified that all relevant issues were duly considered and addressed during the proceedings. The Tribunal highlighted that the grounds raised by the assessee were related to the issues already discussed and resolved in the order.

Issue 5:
The violation of principles of natural justice was raised by the assessee. However, the Tribunal had already addressed this issue in the order, indicating that the concerns regarding natural justice were adequately considered and resolved.

Issue 6:
The request to summon a bank manager and the non-consideration of a legal decision were disputed. The Tribunal explained that the decision-making process and the assessment of evidence were within the jurisdiction of the tax authorities. The Tribunal justified its decision based on the evidence presented and the specific nature of the case.

Issue 7:
The assessee alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's findings and decisions. However, the Tribunal reiterated that it lacked the authority to review its findings under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the claims of errors in its decisions and upheld its original conclusions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal thoroughly analyzed each issue raised by the assessee, provided detailed justifications for its decisions, and ultimately dismissed all the petitions filed by the assessee based on the findings and discussions presented in the order.