2015 (3) TMI 841 - HC - Income Tax

Unaccounted cash - sale of shops - Held that - the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner and the Tribunal do not raise any substantial question of law. If the actual area purchased by the Assessee is 454.50 square feet and the Assessing Officer accepts this transaction, then, consideration in respect thereof ought to have been accepted and the sum paid by way of cheque is the only component in the transaction. The cash payment of 52,26,000/- is not relatable to the sale in favour of the Assessee nor to any specific shop. Going by the cross examination of Kantilal Patel and the specific answer to a question by him it is evident that it is not established that the Assessee actually paid ₹ 52,26,000/- over and above the purchase consideration paid by cheque. In the circumstances, we do not think that the Appeal raises any substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Interpretation of facts and evidence regarding purchase of a shop
- Consideration of concurrent findings of fact
- Application of legal precedents in tax assessment cases

Analysis:

The judgment by the Bombay High Court pertains to an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the purchase of a shop. The Appellant, represented by Mr. Pinto, argued that the Assessing Officer established that the Assessee paid a sum in cash for the shop purchase, supported by incriminating papers and witness examinations. Mr. Pinto contended that the Commissioner and the Tribunal erred in relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The Appellant claimed that the Appeal raised a substantial question of law based on the evidence presented.

On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Singh, representing the Assessee, argued that the findings of fact were not perverse and were based on proper consideration. He highlighted that the Assessing Officer overlooked crucial cross-examination evidence, indicating that the Assessee only paid a specific amount for the shop purchase. Mr. Singh emphasized that the cash component's source and purpose were not proven, leading to a conclusion that the Appeal lacked a substantial legal question and should be dismissed.

After considering both arguments, the High Court agreed with Mr. Singh's position. The Court found that the Commissioner and the Tribunal's factual findings did not raise any substantial legal question. It was established that the Assessee's payment for the shop purchase was accurately reflected in the transaction details, with the cash component not directly linked to the Assessee or any specific shop. The Court concluded that the evidence did not support the Appellant's claim of a substantial legal issue, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal without costs.