2008 (7) TMI 498 - HC - Income Tax

Search in premises of partners of assessee and seizure of computer printout relating to transactions of assessee - An enquiry was conducted and the Assessing Officer held that the unaccounted income of the assessee-firm has to he brought to tax. - when the seizure of the document is not denied by the partners of the appellant-firm, it is for them to explain to show that such a document is not concerning the business of the appellant - Tribunal is justified in bringing the amount into tax - The search material shows that payments were made on different dates. hence entire unaccounted money is not taxable in particular assessment year - it is for the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment, by finding whether entire amount was received by partners during assessment year - the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer only to consider the case whether the unaccounted money has to be spread over for different assessment years or for the assessment year 1993-94.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality and correctness of the Tribunal's order by the assessee.
2. Dispute regarding unaccounted income and tax liability of the appellant-firm.
3. Application of section 132(4A) presumption to the appellant's case.
4. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Tribunal's Order
The appellant challenged the legality and correctness of the Tribunal's order, which allowed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision. The Tribunal concluded that unaccounted money was received by the partners of the appellant-firm, based on seized documents and statements. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the Assessing Officer's decision to bring the unaccounted income into assessment.

Issue 2: Dispute over Unaccounted Income
The appellant, a partnership firm, constructed a commercial complex and sold shops to buyers. The Revenue alleged that the firm received additional sale consideration in cash, not accounted for in the sale deeds. The Assessing Officer demanded tax payment and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) initially allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, holding that unaccounted money was received by the firm's partners, warranting tax assessment.

Issue 3: Application of Section 132(4A) Presumption
The Tribunal invoked the presumption under section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, linking the seized documents from a partner's premises to the appellant-firm. The partners' statements and evidence were considered, leading to the conclusion that unaccounted money was indeed received by the firm. The Tribunal found errors in the Commissioner's decision and upheld the Assessing Officer's order.

Issue 4: Penalty Proceedings
Regarding penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine if the unaccounted money was received in the assessment year 1993-94 and whether it should be spread over different years. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the partners to provide evidence and explanations, failing which the assessment would proceed based on the findings.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessment of unaccounted money for the appellant-firm. The court directed a thorough examination of the timing and receipt of the amount by the partners, emphasizing the importance of producing relevant documents and evidence.