2017 (1) TMI 989 - HC - Income Tax

Search not supported by the original form - Misinterpreting the documents produced in form No.45 while issuing search warrant under Section 132 - Held that - All firms were referred ever since Ratan Mandir was carrying out their activities in the residential house at Vijay Gopalji Ka Mandir, Johari Bazar Jaipur. Therefore, the findings arrived at are to be viewed in view of form No.45. We make it clear that these are tentative findings on the basis of zerox copy. While reconsidering the matter, the Tribunal will call for the original record and will examine the documents and will hear both the parties and examine all the parties including Raj Kumar Sharma, Rana and Department. Only on this one point, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in reversing the finding of the CIT(A). It is required to be reappreciated by the Tribunal. We know that the matter is remanded back almost after 13 years but the findings which are arrived at by the Tribunal requires to be arrived at after reappriciation of the evidence and the same will be done after calling for the original documents and after giving opportunity to both sides namely Raj Kumar Sharma and Rana for inspecting the documents and offering their comments.

Issues Involved:

1. Justification of ITAT in upholding the deletion of certain amounts by CIT(A).
2. Rebuttal of presumption under section 132(4A) regarding Annexure A-8.
3. Validity of search and requisition of documents under sections 132 and 132A.
4. Evidentiary value of Annexure A-8 and computation of undisclosed income.
5. Liability of a partner for income tax on seized goods from another partner's premises.
6. Maintainability of an appeal filed by one partner on behalf of others.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of ITAT in upholding the deletion of certain amounts by CIT(A):
The appeals questioned whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the deletion of ?72,16,435/- and ?2,02,925/- made by CIT(A). The court examined the Tribunal's decision, which had partly favored the department and partly the parties involved. The Tribunal's judgment was found to require reappreciation of evidence, particularly regarding the original documents and the context of the deletions.

2. Rebuttal of presumption under section 132(4A) regarding Annexure A-8:
The Tribunal had held that Shri Raj Kumar Sharma did not rebut the presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act concerning Annexure A-8. The court noted the Tribunal's decision that the annexure pertained to Shri Raj Kumar Sharma individually. However, the court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to re-evaluate this finding after examining the original documents and hearing all parties involved.

3. Validity of search and requisition of documents under sections 132 and 132A:
The appeals raised issues about the validity of the search conducted under section 132 and the requisition of documents under section 132A. The Tribunal had concluded that no search was conducted on the assessee and no requisition of books or assets was made. The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the documents and remitted the matter back for reappreciation, emphasizing the need to verify the original documents.

4. Evidentiary value of Annexure A-8 and computation of undisclosed income:
The Tribunal had held that Annexure A-8 had no evidentiary value and that no undisclosed income could be computed based on it. The court directed the Tribunal to re-examine this issue, considering the original documents and providing an opportunity for all parties to present their arguments. The court highlighted the necessity of re-evaluating the evidence to determine the correct computation of undisclosed income.

5. Liability of a partner for income tax on seized goods from another partner's premises:
The appeals questioned whether a partner could be held liable for income tax on goods seized from another partner's premises. The Tribunal had found that the seized documents pertained to the firm, M/s. Ratan Mandir, and that the burden of explaining the transactions rested on the managing partner. The court directed the Tribunal to reappreciate this finding after examining the original documents and hearing all parties involved.

6. Maintainability of an appeal filed by one partner on behalf of others:
The appeals also raised the issue of whether an appeal filed by one partner could be maintained on behalf of other partners and the firm. The court noted the Tribunal's findings and directed a re-evaluation of this issue, emphasizing the need to verify the original documents and provide an opportunity for all parties to present their arguments.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for reappreciation of the evidence. The Tribunal was directed to call for the original documents, provide an opportunity for all parties to inspect the documents, and re-evaluate the findings independently. The court emphasized that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and that the Tribunal should consider all issues afresh. The proceedings were to be completed within six months from the specified date.

← Previous Next →