2018 (12) TMI 529 - HC - Income Tax

Block assessment u/s 158BC - Search was conducted in the various business premises, jewelries of the assessee, at different locations, all partnerships firms with the siblings as partners, as also residence of the partners on 20.11.2001 under Section 132 - Held that - On a verification of the details as produced by the partners and their return of income found that the figures in the books of the assessee tallies with the figures as seen from the individual returns of the partners and their wives. It was in such circumstance, that the First Appellate Authority modified the assessments and while retaining certain additions deleted the major portion. The Tribunal also found favour with the First Appellate Authorities order. As far as the rectification and addition made in the course of such rectifications the assessee was issued with notice and only later, the Assessing Officer made the additions. However that also, related to the credit found in the name of the partners in the capital account of the assessee firm which again stood explained by the individual returns of the partners for the various years as produced before the First Appellate Authority. We do not think any interference need be caused to the findings on facts as entered by the First Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. We do not see any question of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues involved:
Block assessment under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the block period 01.04.1995 to 20.11.2001 for various partnerships and individuals, excess stock found during search, undisclosed stock, purchases made by partners and their wives, cash credit, rectification filed by the assessee, explanation offered by the assessee, modifications in assessments by the First Appellate Authority, additions made by the Assessing Officer, findings of the Tribunal, legal heirs brought on record, questions of law raised.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to appeals arising from different orders of the Tribunal following a block assessment conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The search encompassed various business premises, jewelries, partnerships with siblings as partners, and residences of the partners on 20.11.2001, leading to a notice for block assessment under Section 158BC.

The first issue addressed in the judgment concerns the excess stock found during the search for Chinnan Sons Jewelers, Perinthalmanna, for the block period 01.04.1995 to 20.11.2001. The partners explained that the excess stock was purchased by them and kept for sale by the partnership firm. Additionally, purchases made by partners' wives and cash credits were attributed to gold purchased on behalf of the firm. The Assessing Officer doubted the explanation as a means to suppress income, but the First Appellate Authority and Tribunal found the explanations credible, aligning the figures in the books with individual returns of partners and their wives.

Another issue involved a rectification filed by the assessee, where a notice was issued regarding a credit of ?1,28,50,000 in the partners' capital account. However, individual returns of the partners clarified the source of these credits, leading to no interference with the findings entered by the First Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Tribunal.

The judgment concludes by rejecting the appeals filed by the Revenue, stating that no questions of law arise from the order, and no costs are awarded. The legal heirs of a deceased partner were brought on record, and the judgment emphasizes the alignment of explanations provided by the partners with the assessments made by the authorities, leading to no legal issues for consideration.

In summary, the judgment extensively analyzes issues related to block assessments, excess stock, undisclosed transactions, rectifications, explanations provided by the assessee, modifications in assessments, and the alignment of figures in books with individual returns. The decision ultimately rejects the appeals, highlighting the coherence between explanations and assessments, and the absence of legal questions warranting consideration.