1989 (12) TMI 86 - AT - Income Tax

Advance Tax, Advance Tax, Assessed Income, Assessed Income, Interest Payable By Assessee, Interest Payable By Assessee, Tax Authorities, Tax Authorities, Total Income, Total Income

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 2,70,000 for unexplained investment in the purchase of an imported Toyota Corolla car.
2. Levying of interest under sec. 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 2,70,000 for unexplained investment in the purchase of an imported Toyota Corolla car:

The primary issue in this case revolves around the addition of Rs. 2,70,000 to the assessee's income as unexplained investment in the purchase of an imported Toyota Corolla car. The car in question was found at the assessee's residence during a search on March 5, 1986. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that the assessee had purchased the car from Smt. Madhu Sethi for Rs. 2,70,000. Conversely, the assessee claimed that the car was merely borrowed for a trip to Hardwar a day or two before the search.

During the search, the car was found parked at the assessee's residence, with the key and relevant papers in his possession. The assessee's responses during the search were vague and non-committal, failing to provide clear answers regarding the car's possession and acquisition. The statements of Smt. Madhu Sethi on the day of the search indicated that she had sold the car to the assessee for a price between Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 2,70,000. However, in subsequent statements, she and her husband retracted, claiming the car was only lent for temporary use.

The Tribunal found the initial statements made during the search to be more credible, as they were spontaneous and made under less prepared circumstances. The subsequent retractions were seen as attempts to align their stories after having time to consider the implications. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the assessee's and the Sethis' later statements and found that the car had been in the assessee's possession since at least January 4, 1985, as evidenced by records of petrol expenses in the books of M/s Grover Leasing Ltd., a company managed by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the authorities' findings that the assessee had indeed purchased the car in May-June 1984 and reduced the addition from Rs. 2,70,000 to Rs. 2,50,000, considering the lack of precise evidence on the exact amount paid.

2. Levying of interest under sec. 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The second issue pertains to the levy of interest under sec. 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the last completed assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 resulted in a loss, and the assessment for 1984-85, completed after the period for advance tax payment, also showed an income below the taxable limit. Therefore, the assessee contended that he was not obliged to file a statement or estimate of advance tax under sec. 209A(1).

The Tribunal accepted this contention, referencing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling in Patel Aluminium (P.) Ltd. v. Miss K.M. Tawadia, ITO [1987] 165 ITR 99, which supported the assessee's position. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the ITO's order levying interest under sec. 217.

Conclusion:

The assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The addition for the unexplained investment in the car was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000, and the levy of interest under sec. 217 was set aside.