2018 (4) TMI 1480 - HC - Income Tax

Additions as income from other sources u/s 69A - Bitumen Scam - Act of agent on behalf of principal - it was found that the contracted quantity of Bitumen was not delivered to consignees, whereas all the oil companies confirmed lifting of Bitumen. - Additions of the cost of short supply of Bitumen in the total income u/s 69A. - Held that - If the appellant introduced M/S Pawan Carrier as its agent and by virtue of his authorization given in favour of M/S Pawan Carrier if the oil companies allowed M/s Pawan Carrier to lift the Bitumen and then M/s Pawan Carrier being an agent of this assessee did some unauthorized act, the appellant-assessee cannot escape the liability arising out of such unauthorized act of his agent. Mrely because payments have been received in the name of M/s Pawan Carrier the assessee cannot derive any benefit out of that and the assessee cannot be allowed to avoid the liability arising out of non- supply of Bitumen to the consignees. M/s Pawan Carrier has been held to be an agent of the assessee, the assessee would be liable for the shortfall in the quantity of Bitumen delivered by M/s Pawan Carrier. The amount received by M/s Pawan Carrier was on the basis of the authorization of the assessee as an agent of the assessee, therefore the assessing officer and the appellate authority as also the learned Tribunal has rightly taken a view based on the materials available on the record. The assessee was given opportunity to bring the proprietor of M/s Pawan Carrier and when he failed to bring the proprietor of M/s Pawan Carrier before the assessing officer, a notice was sent to M/s Pawan Carrier on which a reply was received that they had executed the work on behalf of the appellant-assessee, therefore no grave error leading to miscarriage of justice has been committed by the assessing officer. Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding addition of income from other sources.
2. Substantial questions of law framed for the appeals.
3. Allegations related to the "Bitumen Scam" in the Road Construction Department, State of Bihar.
4. Identification of M/s Pawan Carrier as an agent of the appellant-assessee.
5. Justification of the assessing authority's addition of shortfall in Bitumen delivery as income of the appellant-assessee.
6. Examination of the legality and judicial actions of the assessing officer and appellate authorities.
7. Failure to conduct proper enquiries regarding the status of M/s Pawan Carrier.
8. Assessment of the orders' validity in enforcing compliance by M/s Pawan Carrier and concerned parties.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed challenging the Tribunal's order adding income from other sources. Substantial questions of law were framed, including issues regarding the nature of M/s Pawan Carrier, justification of assessing authority's actions, and the legality of ignoring crucial facts.
2. The case involved the infamous "Bitumen Scam" in the Road Construction Department of Bihar, with allegations of non-delivery of contracted Bitumen. The appellant derived income from a transportation business and salary, facing accusations related to the shortfall in Bitumen delivery.
3. M/s Pawan Carrier was identified as an agent of the appellant-assessee, responsible for executing contracts on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal found that M/s Pawan Carrier was introduced by the appellant to lift Bitumen, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was involved in the unauthorized acts.
4. The assessing authority's addition of the shortfall in Bitumen delivery as income of the appellant was justified, as the appellant was held responsible for the actions of its agent, M/s Pawan Carrier. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing relevant legal precedents.
5. Despite claims that payments received by M/s Pawan Carrier absolved the appellant of liability, it was established that the appellant's authorization made M/s Pawan Carrier an agent, binding the appellant to the consequences of non-supply of Bitumen.
6. The assessing officer and appellate authorities acted judiciously in considering the evidence and concluding that the appellant was liable for the actions of M/s Pawan Carrier. The failure to produce the proprietor of M/s Pawan Carrier did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
7. The legality of the assessing officer's actions in not conducting thorough enquiries into M/s Pawan Carrier's status was questioned. However, the Tribunal's findings based on available evidence were deemed appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
8. Overall, the judgment upheld the assessing authority's decision to add the shortfall in Bitumen delivery as income of the appellant, considering the appellant's role in authorizing M/s Pawan Carrier's actions. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the orders of assessment and the appellate authorities.

← Previous Next →