9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 303 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - whether Tribunal is right in law in accepting the contentions of the Assessee without giving an opportunity to the AO by way of a remand, particularly, when the Assessee has withdrawn the statement unsuccessfully without legal basis ? - HELD THAT - Explanation offered by the Assessee was more than probabilized. These are concurrent findings of fact. Besides, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal 1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT the explanations in the context of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act have to be considered in the light of human probabilities and the explanations cannot be unreasonably rejected. Thus, the decision in Sumati Dayal (supra), to a certain extent, supports the case of the Assessee rather than the Revenue. The decision in Killick Nixon Ltd. 2012 (3) TMI 175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT turns on its peculiar facts where there were concurrent finding of fact that the transaction in question was a sham and not genuine transaction. In these circumstances, it was held that there was no question of law to be considered. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of fact. Since no case of perversity has been made out, no substantial question of law arises.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions under Section 35E of the Income Tax Act. 2. Application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding unexplained credits in the books of the Assessee. Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 35E of the Income Tax Act concerning an amount of &8377; 5,00,00,000/- paid by the Assessee to mining lessees. The payment was analyzed to be for development purposes like roads, trenches, and drilling, rather than for acquiring mining rights. Both the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the provisions of Section 35E applicable, leading to benefits extended to the Assessee. The findings were considered justified based on the agreement's scope and transactions between the parties, with no evidence of perversity found in these conclusions. 2. The second issue involves the application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding unexplained credits in the Assessee's books, specifically related to payments to fictitious entities. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not satisfied with the Assessee's explanation due to non-cooperation from the entities. However, both the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT held the Assessee's explanation satisfactory, considering various circumstances such as payments made by cheques and profits derived from transactions. The concurrent findings emphasized that the AO should have considered multiple factors rather than solely focusing on non-cooperation. The judgments in Sumati Dayal and Killick Nixon Ltd. were referenced to support the Assessee's position, highlighting the importance of reasonable consideration and human probabilities in assessing explanations under Section 68. 3. The court dismissed the Appeal as it found no substantial question of law requiring consideration based on the analysis of both issues. The lack of perversity in the concurrent findings and the proper application of legal principles led to the decision to reject the Appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of examining all relevant circumstances and human probabilities in assessing explanations under tax laws, supporting the Assessee's position in this case. 4. The judgment highlighted the necessity for Assessing Officers to consider all evidence and circumstances comprehensively when evaluating explanations provided by Assessees, especially in cases involving unexplained credits or transactions with third parties. The legal principles outlined in the judgment underscore the importance of fairness and reasonableness in tax assessments, ensuring that decisions are based on a thorough analysis of facts and probabilities.
|
