9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 639 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s.69 - payment of on money to the builders for acquisition of bunglow - ITAT deleted addition - whether any ground or reason arises to interfere with the order of the Tribunal? - Held that - The Tribunal gave elaborate reasonings to assail the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. Thus, the fact remains that the entire issue is based on factual aspects and the Tribunal by giving cogent reasons, came to the conclusion that addition of on money in case of respondent - Assessee is unjustified and accordingly, directed the addition of on money to be deleted. Tribunal did not find any material evidence to establish that the Assessee made investment over and above what was recorded in the return of income filed by the Asessee. In the background of the present case, under these circumstances, there does not exist any ground or reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for our consideration and no perversity in the conclusion arrived at which give rise to interfere with the impugned orders has been pointed out that any of the findings are perverse in its nature. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of fact and the appeals deserve no further consideration, more particularly, in light of various case-laws cited at bar by learned advocate Mr.Shah for the respondent - Assessee on the scope of appeal under Section 260A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the addition of Rs. 5,22,500/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act for payment of "on money" to builders for the acquisition of a bungalow. 2. Assessment of evidence and statements recorded during the search and survey operations. 3. The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The scope of interference by the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Legality of the Addition under Section 69 The primary issue in the appeals was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,22,500/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act for payment of "on money" to the builders for the acquisition of a bungalow. The Revenue contended that the addition was justified based on the statements and evidence collected during the search and survey operations. Issue 2: Assessment of Evidence and Statements During the search on 27.03.1992 at the premises of certain individuals and their firm, it was admitted that 60% of the consideration for the bungalows was received by cheque and 40% in cash as "on money." The Assessing Officer inferred that the respective respondents paid specific sums as "on money." However, the Assessee denied paying anything over Rs. 6,12,500/- and contested the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the addition of "on money" was unjustified as there was no substantial evidence to support the claim that the Assessee had paid any amount over the recorded Rs. 6,12,500/-. Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision to Delete the Addition The ITAT allowed the appeal of the Assessee, stating that the addition of "on money" was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of natural justice, noting that any material used against the Assessee must be put to the Assessee, allowing an opportunity to rebut the same. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not have concrete evidence to prove that the Assessee paid "on money" and that the statements of the builders during cross-examination did not support the Revenue's claim. Issue 4: Scope of Interference by the High Court The High Court examined whether there was any substantial question of law that warranted interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Court noted that the Tribunal's findings were based on factual appreciation and cogent reasons. The Revenue's contention that the findings were perverse was not upheld, as the Tribunal had adequately addressed the evidence and statements. The Court emphasized that it could not re-evaluate the evidence or factual findings of the Tribunal under Section 260A, which only allows for interference on substantial questions of law. Conclusion The High Court dismissed the appeals, concluding that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,22,500/- under Section 69 was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings and upheld the deletion of the addition. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the Assessee did not make any undisclosed investment in the bungalows of the 'Tulip' Scheme.
|
