2018 (11) TMI 1329 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 56(1) - unaccounted money of the assessee company which have been introduced in the garb of share application money - ITAT upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition - Held that - Appellant has taken us to the order of AO, CIT(A) and tribunal and thereafter contended that both CIT(A) as well as Tribunal have erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1.95 crore which was made u/s 56(1). However, the tribunal while considering the matter has discussed the law as well as factual matrix of the case. In our considered opinion, this is more an appreciation of facts rather question of law. No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, common question of law and facts, assailing tribunal's judgment, substantial questions of law framed by the counsel, deletion of additions made under section 56(1) of the Act, assessing officer's powers, CIT(A)'s powers in appeal, tribunal's decision justification, assets not commensurate to premium charged, business activity and income not shown, unaccounted money introduced as share application money, ITAT's decision on deletion of additions, provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the IT Act, explanation of section 251(2) of the IT Act, AO, CIT(A), and tribunal's orders, appreciation of facts vs. question of law.

Analysis:

The High Court considered multiple appeals involving common questions of law and facts challenging the tribunal's decision to dismiss the department's appeals. The substantial questions of law framed by the counsel revolved around the deletion of additions under section 56(1) of the Act, focusing on unaccounted money introduced as share application money without corresponding business activities or income shown by the concerns involved.

The appeals questioned the justification of the tribunal in upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete various additions made under section 56(1) of the Act. The issues raised included whether the assets of the assessee companies commensurate with the premium charged, and if the assessing officer or CIT(A) had the authority to make such additions. The tribunal's interpretation of the assessing officer's powers under section 68 of the IT Act was also challenged.

Furthermore, the appeals raised concerns about the CIT(A)'s powers in an appeal, the tribunal's decision-making process, and the application of relevant provisions of the IT Act. The court analyzed the law and factual matrix of each case to determine if the matters at hand were more about the appreciation of facts rather than substantial questions of law.

Ultimately, the High Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the appeals, leading to their dismissal. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the tribunal's considerations were more related to factual analysis than legal interpretation, thus not warranting further judicial intervention.