9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 83 - HC - Income TaxAO on basis of seized document made additions u/s 69 as un-identified investment there was sufficient material before the A.O. to have made additions I.T.A.T. by elaborate reasoning has also held that the presumption created by the document had not been rebutted nor had the assessee denied the loan amount - no infirmity in tribunal s order contention raised at the appellate stage was merely an attempt to create doubts in the mind of court no violation of principle of natural justice
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 20 lacs as an income tax advance made by the assessee to Mr. Bhupendra Chedda is based on legal evidence. 2. Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present their case. 3. The applicability of Section 132(4A) and Section 292C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The relevance and impact of documentary evidence and its presumption under the Income Tax Act. 5. The violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 20 lacs as Income Tax Advance: The core issue revolves around whether the addition of Rs. 20 lacs as an income tax advance made by the assessee to Mr. Bhupendra Chedda is based on legal evidence. The Assessing Officer (AO) made this addition based on a seized document during a search, which indicated a loan of Rs. 20 lacs. The document was not denied by the assessee during the proceedings. The tribunal upheld the AO's decision, noting that the onus to prove that the amount was not actually paid was on the assessee, which was not discharged. The tribunal concluded that the documentary evidence and the implicit admission by the assessee in his statement supported the AO's addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Fair Opportunity to the Assessee: The assessee contended that they were not given a fair opportunity as the documents sought were not made available. The tribunal and the High Court found that the necessary documents were provided and that the assessee had ample opportunity to rebut the presumption but failed to do so. The court noted that the assessee did not deny the document or the transaction at the first available opportunity and did not produce any evidence to counter the presumption created by the seized document. 3. Applicability of Section 132(4A) and Section 292C: The court examined the applicability of Section 132(4A) and Section 292C, which create a presumption that documents found in the possession of a person during a search are true and belong to that person. The court noted that the language of Section 292C, inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, is similar to Section 132(4A) and that the presumption under these sections is rebuttable. However, in this case, the assessee failed to rebut the presumption, and the tribunal's reliance on these sections was justified. 4. Documentary Evidence and Its Presumption: The documentary evidence, a seized document indicating a loan of Rs. 20 lacs, played a crucial role in the case. The court held that the document's contents were presumed to be true under Section 292C, and the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption. The court emphasized that the document indicated the repayment of an already advanced loan, and the assessee's failure to deny the document or the transaction supported the AO's addition. 5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play: The assessee argued that there was a violation of natural justice as the statements or affidavits of Mr. Bhupendra Chedda and Mr. Mahendra Shah were not made available. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the assessee did not deny the document or the transaction and had ample opportunity to present evidence or affidavits from these individuals. The court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice and fair play, and the tribunal's decision was upheld. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the assessee's arguments. The court upheld the tribunal's decision, affirming the addition of Rs. 20 lacs under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act based on the seized document and the presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C. The court also found that the assessee was given a fair opportunity and that there was no violation of natural justice.
|
