2009 (10) TMI 84 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained income - two entries relating to the same sale transaction in favour of the two companies referred to above were not accepted by the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that the date of receipt of the payment was one relating to the subsequent assessment year viz. the assessment year 1997-98 being the payment received during the accounting period relating to 1997-98 the same receipt cannot obviously be taken as receipts for the assessment year with which we are concerned in this appeal and therefore they had become fictitious entries or bogus entries and it had become necessary for the assessee to explain the source of the amount in its hands during that assessment year and this perhaps having been not done by the assessee the Assessing Officer thought it fit to add back the amount as unexplained income of the assessee. - Appellate Commissioner purporting to follow the ruling of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rendered in the case of the very assessee for the earlier assessment years viz. 1993-94 and 1994-95 allowed the appeal set aside the assessment order and directed deletion of the additions Tribunal confirming order of Appellate Commissioner Tribunal s earlier order set aside by HC impugned matter is remanded to Commissioner (A) to decide the matter afresh

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging revised return reducing taxable income.
2. Disputed claims of receipts from two companies not considered genuine by Assessing Officer.
3. Appellate Commissioner set aside assessment order, directing deletion of additions made by Assessing Officer.
4. Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, citing lack of appeal against earlier decision.
5. Question of law regarding acceptance of bogus sales despite independent evidence.
6. Comparison with earlier judgment for the same assessee for a different assessment year.
7. Disagreement between parties on the impact of the earlier judgment on the current tax liability.
8. Assessment order based on unexplained income added back by Assessing Officer.
9. Dispute regarding the necessity of a specific statutory provision for assessment.
10. Remand to first appellate authority for independent examination of merits of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue challenging a revised return filed by a private limited company for the assessment year 1996-97, reducing the taxable income. The Assessing Officer found certain receipts from two companies to be not genuine, adding them back to the taxable income, resulting in a demand for tax payment and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The Appellate Commissioner, following a ruling of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in favor of the assessee for earlier years, set aside the assessment order, directing the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, noting the lack of appeal by the Revenue against its earlier decision, dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

3. The High Court considered the question of law regarding the acceptance of alleged bogus sales despite the existence of independent evidence supporting their genuineness. Reference was made to a previous judgment involving the same assessee for a different assessment year, where a remand was ordered for reassessment.

4. The court noted the disagreement between the parties regarding the impact of the earlier judgment on the current tax liability. The Assessing Officer's decision to add back unexplained income was challenged, with the respondent arguing the necessity of a specific statutory provision for such an assessment.

5. Ultimately, the court decided to remand the matter to the first appellate authority for an independent examination of the appeal's merits, based on existing materials. The orders of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, leading to a fresh assessment based on the available evidence and legal provisions.

← Previous Next →