9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1213 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order of tribunal remanding the matter back to AO - undisclosed income for the block period 01.04.1986 to 30.08.1996 - Held that - a mere order of remand does not raise a question of law much less a substantial question of law. We will assume that to be correct. However when an order of remand is made with a direction or an order specifying the manner in which or the principles upon which the order ought to be passed it is not a simplicitor order of remand. If a question of law arises out of the direction issued a question of law and even a substantial question of law can always arise from and on account of the direction issued by the appellate authority. For instance when the appellate authority decides a question of law and remands the matter to the lower authority whether it is the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals) with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the judgment and it is found that the direction raises a substantial question of law can always be the subject matter of an appeal under Section 260-A. Remand order upheld - Decided against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Observation on suppressed sales and applicability of CIT Vs. H.M. Essufali and H.M. Abdullali. 2. Rejection of gross profit rate application based on search operation. 3. Deletion of addition on account of unaccounted investment in unrecorded sales. 4. Addition on account of undisclosed income in respect of sales reflected in the books of account. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Observation on Suppressed Sales and Applicability of CIT Vs. H.M. Essufali and H.M. Abdullali: The Tribunal's observation that suppressed sales in a particular area or month should be taken into account and not extended for all areas and months was challenged. The Tribunal's reliance on the case of CIT Vs. H.M. Essufali and H.M. Abdullali was deemed inapplicable by the Tribunal. The High Court found the Tribunal's observation incorrect, emphasizing that the suppressed sales were not limited to unrecorded sales but also included under-invoicing. The Court clarified that "undisclosed income" under Section 158B(b) includes income based on "other documents or transactions" and not just entries in the books of account. The Tribunal's observation was deemed perverse as it contradicted the record, which showed evidence of under-invoicing. 2. Rejection of Gross Profit Rate Application Based on Search Operation: The Tribunal had rejected the application of a gross profit rate of 16.93% for working out suppressed profit and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the net profit rate on undisclosed sales. The High Court found that while the Tribunal's direction to apply the net profit rate was remanding the matter for re-computation, it was necessary to ensure that the gross profit rate should be recalculated accurately upon remand. 3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unaccounted Investment in Unrecorded Sales: The Tribunal deleted the addition of ?15,03,107/- made on account of unaccounted investment involved in unrecorded sales. The High Court found that the Tribunal's observation that the only information related to undisclosed income was unrecorded sales was incorrect. The record showed that there was also under-invoicing, which was not considered by the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer must consider all evidence, including under-invoicing, when reassessing the undisclosed income. 4. Addition on Account of Undisclosed Income in Respect of Sales Reflected in the Books of Account: The Tribunal held that no addition should be made on account of undisclosed income in respect of sales reflected in the books of account. The High Court found this observation too broad, noting that the Assessing Officer could draw reasonable inferences based on all facts and circumstances, including the material seized during the search and seizure operations. The Court highlighted that suppressed sales in one area could be relevant to other areas if the evidence indicated a general practice of suppression. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the order of remand by the Tribunal but clarified that the assessment upon remand should be based on the principles outlined in the judgment. The Court answered the questions of law in favor of the appellant to the extent indicated and directed that the gross profit rate be recalculated upon remand. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
