1982 (5) TMI 6 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of P. Bhaskara Rao to intervene in the appeal.
2. Validity of the addition of Rs. 55,000 as income from undisclosed sources based on the disclosure petition u/s 271(4A).

Summary:

Issue 1: Locus Standi of P. Bhaskara Rao to Intervene in the Appeal

The Tribunal held that P. Bhaskara Rao had the locus standi to intervene in the appeal filed on behalf of the assessee-firm and prosecute it. The Tribunal reasoned that the right to appeal to the Tribunal from an order passed by the AAC was not confined technically to the party who was a party to the appeal but was a much wider right which could be exercised by any person who became liable to pay tax by any order against which the appeal was preferred. Since the ITO at Vizianagaram included 75% of the firm's income in the assessment of P. Bhaskara Rao, he became liable to pay the tax assessed on the assessee-firm. Therefore, he had a legal grievance and was directly interested in the assessment of the firm, making him an "assessee aggrieved by the order of the AAC."

Issue 2: Validity of the Addition of Rs. 55,000 as Income from Undisclosed Sources

The Tribunal held that the disclosure petition should have been accepted as a whole. The Department made a mistake of law in accepting a part of the disclosure petition. The Tribunal directed the ITO for a fresh determination of the issue in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's view was that if the Department wanted to make the addition on the basis of the disclosure, then the disclosure should be taken as a whole and the addition made as desired by the assessee. Otherwise, the Department should have determined the quantum of income from undisclosed sources on the basis of material gathered in an independent enquiry.

High Court's Decision:

1. Locus Standi: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that P. Bhaskara Rao had the locus standi to intervene in the appeal and prosecute it. The Court noted that the assessment order caused him a legal grievance by imposing a tax which according to him was not lawfully payable.

2. Addition of Rs. 55,000: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the disclosure petition should be taken as a whole. The Court agreed that the Tribunal's order was made on a proper basis and did not call for interference in reference.

Conclusion:

The first question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, and the second question was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee. Each party was to bear and pay its own costs.

Separate Judgment:

Sabyasachi Mukharji J. agreed with the judgment.