2017 (10) TMI 1328 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69(B) - Held that - Since books of accounts was not rejected therefore provisions of Section 69(B) was wrongly invoked. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?55,20,250/- by ITAT.
2. Deletion of addition of ?41,20,000/- on account of profit earned on sale of lands.
3. Deletion of addition of ?2,61,57,380/- made under Section 69B on account of undisclosed investment.
4. Deletion of addition of ?12,71,000/- under Section 69B on account of undisclosed investment.
5. Whether the appeals abate upon the death of the assessee.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of ?55,20,250/- by ITAT:
The first issue pertains to whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of ?55,20,250/-. The court noted that the ITAT applied the same reasoning as in the assessment year 2008-09 without specifying how the evidence discussed in the assessment order and in the order of the CIT(A) could not be relied upon. The court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no reason to interfere with the order of both the authorities.

2. Deletion of Addition of ?41,20,000/- on Account of Profit Earned on Sale of Lands:
The second issue concerns the deletion of ?41,20,000/- made on account of profit earned on the sale of lands at Hanumanpura, Jaipur. The ITAT held that the assessee was just a broker and ignored the admission of the assessee under Section 132(4) and other vital evidence. The court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that the books of accounts were not rejected, and thus, the provisions of Section 69(B) were wrongly invoked.

3. Deletion of Addition of ?2,61,57,380/- Made Under Section 69B on Account of Undisclosed Investment:
The third issue involves the deletion of ?2,61,57,380/- made under Section 69B. The ITAT justified its decision by holding that the assessee was just a broker and ignored the admission of the assessee and other vital evidence. The court supported the ITAT's decision, noting that the books of accounts were not rejected, and therefore, the provisions of Section 69(B) were wrongly invoked.

4. Deletion of Addition of ?12,71,000/- Under Section 69B on Account of Undisclosed Investment:
The fourth issue relates to the deletion of ?12,71,000/- under Section 69B. The ITAT's decision was based on ignoring the evidence and admission of the assessee. The court upheld the ITAT's decision, reiterating that the books of accounts were not rejected, making the invocation of Section 69(B) incorrect.

5. Whether the Appeals Abate Upon the Death of the Assessee:
Initially, the respondent's counsel argued that the appeals abate based on the decision in Union of India Vs. Ram Charan (Deceased). However, the appellant's counsel cited Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another V/s Smt. V. Rukmini, which clarified that the liability to pay tax does not extinguish upon the death of an assessee, and proceedings can continue against legal representatives. The court agreed with the appellant's counsel, stating that the appeals do not abate and can continue against the legal representatives of the deceased assessee.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appeals would not abate and proceeded to hear the counsel for the parties on merits. After considering the observations made by CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the court found no reason to interfere with the orders of both authorities. The issues were decided in favor of the assessee and against the department, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

← Previous Next →