2016 (10) TMI 932 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in the residential house at Vapi - wife of the assessee after search and seizure opted for the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 - Held that - VDIS was accepted as correct and genuine, the income could not have been added once again in the hands of the assessee. - Decided in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of unexplained investment in a residential house.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the undisclosed share of a company found at the assessee's residence during a search.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the Block Period of Financial Year 1987-88 to 1996-1997 and 1.4.1997 to 19.12.1997. The Tribunal had to decide on two key questions of law. Firstly, it was about confirming the deletion of an addition of ?10,50,000 on account of unexplained investment in a residential house at Vapi. Secondly, it was regarding the deletion of an addition of ?36,83,000 in respect of undisclosed shares found at the assessee's residence. The search under Section 132 was conducted on the business and residential premises of the assessee, leading to the issuance of a notice under Section 158BC. The assessee filed a return showing NIL undisclosed income for the block period. Subsequently, the wife of the assessee opted for the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS), which was accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal's view was that once VDIS was accepted as genuine, it could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee again. The counsel for the Department referred to a decision of the Karnataka High Court where similar questions were answered in favor of the assessee. The High Court analyzed the provisions of VDIS and the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that once a certificate is granted under VDIS, the disclosed income cannot be taxed again in the hands of the declarant or any other person. The Court concluded that since the VDIS was accepted as genuine in the present case, the income could not be added again in the hands of the assessee. The VDIS filed by the Company was also accepted by the Department, further supporting the decision.

In light of the above analysis, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Department. The judgment highlighted the importance of VDIS acceptance and the legal implications of taxing the same income multiple times. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the legal provisions governing VDIS and income taxation.