9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Interpretation of section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding unexplained investments made by the assessee in the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Summary: The case involved a Muslim lady, aged around 20 years, who had no business or income except for a small property income. She purchased properties in Ernakulam in the relevant years, claiming the funds came from savings from inherited properties. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected most of her explanation, adding the amounts to her income. The Appellate Authority and Tribunal also found her explanation unsatisfactory but disagreed on whether to treat the investments as her income. The Tribunal, considering the lady's age and lack of income sources, exercised discretion not to deem the investments as her income despite rejecting her explanation. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal had the authority to differ from lower authorities in exercising judicial discretion. The Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable given the circumstances, ruling in favor of the assessee. The Court emphasized that the unsatisfactory explanation did not automatically lead to deeming the investments as income, as it was within the officer's discretion. The Tribunal's wide power under section 254 allowed it to interfere with lower authorities' decisions and exercise its own discretion, which was deemed appropriate in this case due to the lady's lack of resources and earning capacity. In conclusion, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering the question in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. No costs were awarded, and the judgment would be communicated to the Tribunal as required by law.
|
