9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Issue of notice under section 148 of the Act and framing of assessments pursuant to such notice. 2. Addition of brokerage income for assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. 3. Genuineness of gifts amounting to Rs. 2.40 lakhs in assessment year 1982-83 and Rs. 1.25 lakh in assessment year 1983-84. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Issue of Notice under Section 148 of the Act: - The assessee's counsel admitted that no decision was required on this issue as no grievance was made in the first appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. Consequently, no decision was given on this matter. 2. Addition of Brokerage Income: - Facts and Background: Various firms of Khatiwala, including Associated Engineering Corporation (AEC) and Seema Enterprises (SE), secured contracts from the Irrigation Department of the Government of Gujarat at rates significantly higher than the market rates. News items highlighted this deal, leading to search operations under section 132 of the IT Act on the assessee and the Khatiwala group. Shri Pravinchandra Khatiwala (PK) stated in his oath statement that the contracts were secured due to the efforts of the assessee, who was paid 50% as brokerage after paying secret commissions to various persons. - Assessing Officer's Findings: The AO found substantial deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee's employees and concluded that the assessee and his employees had withdrawn large amounts by "self-cheques" and handed over the money to PK after deducting their brokerage. The AO made additions towards brokerage income for both years based on these findings. - Appellate Commissioner's Findings: The Appellate Commissioner confirmed the additions made by the AO, holding that the assessee did receive brokerage from the Khatiwala firms. The Commissioner also noted that the firms did not produce any firm evidence to establish that commission/brokerage was paid to the assessee. - Assessee's Arguments: The assessee's counsel argued that there was no direct documentary evidence to establish that the Khatiwala firms paid brokerage to the assessee. The affidavits of Shri B.A. Patel and other employees supported the claim that the assessee did not have business relations with the Khatiwala firms. - Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the case regarding brokerage income was built on contradictory statements by the alleged payer (PK) and the alleged receiver (assessee). There was no firm and direct documentary evidence like agreements, vouchers, receipts, or correspondence to establish that the Khatiwala firms paid and the assessee received brokerage. The Tribunal held that there was an absence of direct and convincing documentary evidence and directed the deletion of the additions made towards brokerage income for both years. 3. Genuineness of Gifts: - Assessing Officer's Findings: The AO found that the assessee and his family members received gifts from various persons aggregating to Rs. 8.5 lakhs over four years. The AO concluded that these gifts were bogus and sham, adding the amounts as income from undisclosed sources. - Appellate Commissioner's Findings: The Commissioner held that there was no satisfactory evidence of gifts by the donors and that the gifts were not genuine. However, the Commissioner deleted the additions made by the AO, reasoning that the assessee might have purchased bank demand drafts to give the appearance of genuine gifts from the brokerage income. - Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Appellate Commissioner with a direction to reconsider the issue of gifts in light of the evidence brought on record by the assessee. The Commissioner was directed to give a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in accordance with law. Separate Judgment by Accountant Member: - The Accountant Member disagreed with the Judicial Member's view on the brokerage income issue, holding that the evidence gathered by the AO established beyond doubt that there was a business connection between the assessee and the Khatiwala group. The Accountant Member confirmed the additions made by the AO for both years, stating that the affidavits filed by the assessee's employees were self-serving and not reliable. Third Member's Opinion: - The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member that the assessee did not receive the alleged brokerage/commission and could not be assessed for it in the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Third Member also agreed to remand the matter of gifts to the Appellate Commissioner for a decision on merits. Final Order: - In accordance with the Third Member's order, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
