2008 (11) TMI 247 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee had made investments in time deposits of post offices - investments have not been shown by the assessee in its balance-sheet. - Bank informed that time deposit receipts are lying as securities for the loan advanced by the bank to the assessee - the assessee admits the existence of the TDRs in its name. He has not disclosed the same in its balance-sheet. He does not state that the TDRs are not genuine. He has further not offered any explanation about the sources of investment. - Tribunal did not err in holding that investment in postal time deposits is income from undisclosed sources.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding undisclosed income from investments in postal time deposits during investigation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking the court's opinion on whether investments in postal time deposits during an investigation could be considered income from undisclosed sources. The court directed the Income-tax Tribunal to refer the question for opinion based on a Supreme Court decision.

2. The Tribunal prepared a statement of the case and referred the legal question for the court's opinion. The case involved M/s. Ajanta Construction Company Limited, a contractor, whose investments in time deposits were not disclosed in the balance-sheet. The Assessing Officer treated the undisclosed investment as concealed income under section 69 of the Act.

3. The post offices issuing the time deposits denied their existence, but the assessee did not provide a satisfactory explanation. The Assessing Officer relied on the affirmation of the investments by the assessee in a criminal case. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the addition of the undisclosed income.

4. The assessee argued that the investments were made from contract receipts and matured securities. However, the Tribunal found that the investments were not shown in the balance-sheet, and the assessee failed to provide a credible source for the funds. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's stance in the criminal case contradicted its claims before the tax authorities.

5. The court considered the submissions of both parties. The assessee's representative argued that until the criminal court confirmed the genuineness of the time deposit receipts, the investments should not be deemed unexplained. However, the Revenue's representative contended that since the assessee did not dispute the existence of the time deposits, the investment was rightly treated as undisclosed.

6. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was correct as the assessee acknowledged the existence of the time deposit receipts, did not challenge their authenticity, and failed to provide a legitimate source for the investments. The court emphasized that had the assessee disputed the genuineness of the receipts or offered a credible explanation for the source of funds, the outcome might have been different.

7. Therefore, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that investments in postal time deposits constituted income from undisclosed sources. The case was disposed of, and the opinion was to be forwarded to the Patna Bench of the Tribunal for further action.