2009 (7) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Cash Credit section 68 A proprietorship firm was merged with a company - A sum of Rs.2,94,16,923/- was reflected in the accounts by way of credit entries under the caption sundry creditors . At that point of time, there was no response from the assessee for producing the person, who extended such credit in the form of security deposit to the tune of Rs.2 crores and another credit of Rs.42,71,373 Such cash credit was assessed in the hands of company and tax levied AO wanted to assess the same in the hands of proprietor held that that action of AO is not valid the same transaction can not be subject to double taxation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263.
2. Assessability of credits appearing in the books of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the question of whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 was valid. The assessee, a proprietory concern, had credit entries in its accounts under the caption 'sundry creditors'. The assessing authority noted discrepancies in the credits and reopened the assessment of the company for the same year. The Commissioner of Income-tax, invoking his revisional power under Section 263, directed the assessing authority to reexamine and pass a fresh assessment order. The Tribunal, considering that the company's assessment had already been completed, held that there should be no further liability on the proprietory concern for the same assessment year, as the credits had been assessed in the hands of the company after the merger.

2. The second issue pertained to the assessability of the credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer had added a sum to the income of the assessee as unsecured loans, as the assessee failed to prove the nature of these credits. The Tribunal, however, observed that since the credits were already assessed in the hands of the company after the merger, there should not be double taxation on the proprietory concern for the same credits. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer had already taken one of the possible views and further investigation was not warranted, as the company's assessment had been reopened and the tax liability was imposed on the company.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no need to entertain the appeal as there was no substantial question of law involved. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.