Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1709 - HC - Income TaxStatement made during search and seizure - Non considering the surrendered undisclosed income for the purpose of tax on the basis of material on record - Held that - Learned Counsel for appellant could not dispute that statement recorded during search and seizure could have been explained subsequently and also that after examining entire material on record actual concealment apparent from record was much less than what was disclosed by Assessee, and upheld by CIT(A) and Tribunal. Looking to legal position that Assessee was entitled to explain his statement made during search and seizure operation, we find no reason to disagree with the view recorded by CIT(A) and Tribunal and answer aforesaid question against Revenue and in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of surrendered undisclosed income for tax purposes. Analysis: The case involves an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising from a judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal questioned whether the Tribunal had erred in not considering the surrendered undisclosed income of ?80.00 lacs for tax purposes based on the material on record. The appellant, a coaching institute, had surrendered this income during a search and seizure operation conducted on its premises. The Assessing Officer had finalized the assessment for the block period of 01.04.1996 to 13.09.2002, noting concealment of receipts and undisclosed income. The appellant contested the assessment, arguing that the computation of fees by the Assessing Officer lacked material evidence found during the search. The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) held that since the appellant had offered ?34,00,000 as undisclosed income, there was no basis to sustain any amount beyond that. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal based on the appellant's self-disclosed amount. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, seeking to overturn the CIT (A) decision. The Tribunal, in its judgment, upheld the CIT (A) order. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that the statement made during the search could have been explained later, and upon reviewing the entire record, the actual concealment was found to be less than what the appellant had disclosed. The High Court, after considering the legal position that the appellant was entitled to explain the statement made during the search and seizure operation, found no reason to disagree with the CIT (A) and Tribunal's view. The Court ruled against the Revenue and in favor of the appellant, stating that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
|