2016 (9) TMI 264 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Applicability of Sections 64 and 65 - clubbing of income - assessee s wife and son are the Directors of M/s. Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Held that - We are unable to understand the grievance of the Revenue before us. This was not the case of the Revenue at any time right upto the Tribunal. This is also not a ground taken in the memo of appeal. Therefore, this issue does not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. We find that both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have on the basis of the evidence before it, rendered a finding that the document does not indicate that the amount of ₹ 4.22 crores has been invested by the respondent assessee in M/s. Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. This is more particularly so as the entire case of the Revenue is on the document which is found in possession of a third party, indicating certain amounts payable by the respondent assessee, when the same has been denied by the respondent assessee at all times. This denial on the part of the respondent assessee of the document has not been addressed to by the Revenue. No additions - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2007-08. Question of law regarding addition of ?4,22,30,000 based on seized document. Allegation of unexplained investment under Section 69B. Appeal to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequent appeal to Tribunal. Grievance regarding applicability of Sections 64 and 65 of the Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The main question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in not justifying the addition of ?4,22,30,000 based on a seized document. The respondent, a Doctor by profession, was confronted with a document seized during a search operation, indicating an investment in a company. The Assessing Officer presumed this investment based on family connections to the company. However, the respondent denied the document's authenticity and ownership. The CIT(A) found that the document lacked signatures and could not conclusively prove the alleged investment.

The Tribunal noted undisputed facts, including the absence of the respondent's name in the company's balance sheet and acceptance of investments by other parties. It concluded that the Assessing Officer did not address the respondent's objections adequately and made the addition without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Revenue contended that Sections 64 and 65 should apply, but this argument was dismissed as it was not raised earlier.

The High Court found that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal correctly determined that the document did not prove the alleged investment by the respondent in the company. The Court emphasized the respondent's consistent denial of the document's authenticity, which the Revenue failed to address. As the findings were not shown to be perverse or arbitrary, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.