2009 (11) TMI 49 - HC - Income Tax

The assessee filed return in pursuance of notice under Section 142 (1) declaring nil income apart from non-taxable income from agricultural. The Assessing Officer found investments in banks and deposits in the name of the son of the assessee and treating the said amount as unexplained income additions were made under Section 144. CIT (A) and the Tribunal upheld the assessment held that - attention of the learned counsel for the appellant was drawn to second proviso to Section 144. Notice under Section 142 having been served upon the assessee there was no error in making assessment under Section 144. The question raised cannot be held to be substantial question of law. - The concurrent findings of CIT(A) are based on appreciation of evidence. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities did not appreciate the evidence correctly is not enough to hold that substantial question law arises.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against ITAT order under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Substantial questions of law raised regarding assessment under Section 144, treatment of deposits in banks, declared income of son, and validity of Tribunal's order.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chandigarh. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the assessment conducted under Section 144 of the Act. The primary contention was whether the ITAT was justified in finalizing the assessment without adhering to the proviso to Section 144(1) of the Act.

2. The Assessing Officer noted investments and deposits in banks made in the name of the appellant's son, treating them as unexplained income and making additions under Section 144. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] and the Tribunal upheld this assessment. The appellant declared nil income except for non-taxable agricultural income in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 142(1).

3. The Court considered the first question raised by the appellant and pointed out the second proviso to Section 144, emphasizing that the assessment under Section 144 was valid since the notice under Section 142 had been served on the assessee. The Court held that there was no error in making the assessment under Section 144, thereby dismissing the argument that a substantial question of law arose in this regard.

4. Regarding the second to fourth questions raised by the appellant, the Court reviewed the findings of the authorities, including the Assessing Officer, CIT (A), and the Tribunal. The Court observed that the decisions were based on the evaluation of evidence. The appellant's argument that the authorities did not correctly appreciate the evidence was deemed insufficient to establish the existence of a substantial question of law.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal after considering all the contentions raised by the appellant and concluding that the findings of the authorities were based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh on November 12, 2009.