9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 260 - HC - Income TaxExplanation of the source of investment - Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the building belonged to M/s. Hotel Ganges Ltd. and it was also responsible to explain the source of investment in its construction Held that - The expenses for construction were being managed by the assessee by borrowing the funds from the Hindu undivided family - expenses made by the assessee have been adopted by the company to which there can be no dispute - The Commissioner has found that the company has not even obtained the certificate of commencement of business up to January 2, 1976, and up to March 31, 1976, the company had no source of income which is a finding of fact. This is a case of assessment of unaccounted investment - The investment was done by the assessee - The Company had no income at the time when the expenditure towards construction was undertaken thus, there is no occasion to assess the unaccounted investment at the hands of the company CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and recorded a finding that there being no income of the company at the relevant period when unaccounted investment was made, the same has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee - He has rightly affirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer assessing the unaccounted investment at the hands of the assessee Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and responsibility for explaining the source of investment in the construction of a hotel building. 2. Applicability of the judgment in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. to the current case. 3. Assessment of unaccounted investment and its attribution to the appropriate party. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership and Responsibility for Explaining the Source of Investment: The primary issue was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the building in question belonged to M/s. Hotel Ganges Ltd., and therefore, the company was responsible for explaining the source of investment in its construction. The facts reveal that the assessee, an individual, entered into an agreement with a Hindu undivided family (HUF) to float a company for constructing a hotel. The company, Hotel Ganges Ltd., was incorporated later, and the construction expenses were initially managed by the assessee through borrowed funds from the HUF. The Income-tax Officer found excess investment during the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, which was attributed to the assessee, not the company, as the company had no income or capital at the time. 2. Applicability of the Judgment in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd.: The Tribunal relied on the judgment in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd., where the court held that income made by promoters before the incorporation of a company could be assessed in the hands of the company if the company accepted the actions of the promoters. However, the High Court distinguished this case, noting that the present case involved unaccounted investment rather than pre-incorporation profits. The company had no income during the relevant period, and the funds for construction were arranged by the assessee. Therefore, the judgment in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. was not applicable. 3. Assessment of Unaccounted Investment: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Officer both concluded that the unaccounted investment in the construction should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to attribute the unexplained investment to the company was found erroneous because the company had no income or capital during the relevant period. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) emphasized that the funds for construction were managed by the assessee, and any unaccounted investment should be taxed in his hands. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in applying the judgment of CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. to the present case, as it was not analogous. The unaccounted investment was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee, who managed the construction funds. The question was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, thereby allowing the application.
|
