2015 (2) TMI 853 - HC - Income Tax

Block assessment - total undisclosed income of ₹ 7,81,85,884 by making the addition of ₹ 7,66,28,884 - CIT(A) deleted the addition also confirmed by ITAT - Held that - The attempt of the Revenue is to have a re-appreciation and reappraisal of the factual materials. The only two papers which the AO relied upon, namely page 17 of bundle No. 2 and paper No. 55 of bundle No. 2 have been referred to in details. After the seizure, the managing director of the company was required to explain the contents of the paper. The two statements were recorded. The matter has been discussed in detail by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Upon a perusal of the explanation given by the managing director and the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the matter has been elaborately and properly discussed by the CIT(Appeals). Once the version of the assessee and in details deserves acceptance, then, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises from the exercise undertaken by the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer had a statement of the accountant before him but he did not examine the said accountant. The author of the document/paper also was not examined during the assessment proceedings. She, however, appeared before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) not only examined her but allowed the Assessing Officer to cross-examine the said deponent. The statement made in chief and the cross-examination, both have been referred by the Tribunal in adequate details. We do not find any perversity or error of law apparent on the face of record in the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on block assessment period from 1997-98 to 2002-03; Substantial questions of law arising for determination; Re-appraisal of factual materials by Revenue; Examination of documents and statements by authorities; Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal; Authority to file appeals against Tribunal decisions; Imposition of costs on Revenue for filing frivolous appeals.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case challenged the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the block assessment period from 1997-98 to 2002-03. The Revenue, as the appellant, sought to quash the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-I (Appeals) dated January 2, 2004/February 23rd, 2004. The core issue revolved around the undisclosed income of the assessee, a private limited company engaged in land development activities. A search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted, leading to the assessment of total undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer determined a significant undisclosed income amount, which was challenged by the assessee and eventually led to the Tribunal dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.

The main contention raised was the existence of substantial questions of law, particularly enumerated in the paper book. The Tribunal's order and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision were scrutinized to assess the re-appraisal of factual materials by the Revenue. It was observed that the assessing officer had relied on specific documents and statements, but certain key individuals were not examined during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) extensively discussed the matter, leading to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arose from their decisions.

During the proceedings, it was highlighted that lower-ranking officers should not independently decide to file appeals against Tribunal decisions. The court emphasized the importance of discouraging frivolous appeals challenging settled factual findings. The judgment underscored the need for responsible decision-making to prevent unnecessary delays and loss to the public exchequer. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of efficient and responsible conduct in legal matters.

In conclusion, the judgment serves as a reminder for authorities to exercise discretion judiciously and refrain from filing appeals against well-established facts. The imposition of costs underscores the court's stance on discouraging frivolous litigation and promoting efficient legal proceedings.