2009 (4) TMI 316 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure of assessee s residence-cum-clinic - Assessing Officer rejected the returned figures, and added a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 spent towards the marriage reception of her daughter. A further sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was added towards referral income which is the amount of commission received from clinic and laboratories of doctors for having referred patients to them for consultation and/or investigation - a large number of documents were seized in the course of search and seizure which disclosed that the assessee was receiving illegal money by sharing the fee of doctors and X-ray clinic to whom she had referred her patients for consultation and/or investigation, X-ray, etc Hence additions were justified - It is evident on the findings recorded in the impugned order that the assessee is a mendacious person capable of taking contradictory stands with the dishonest intention to avoid lawful taxation. - the assessee had herself conceded before the learned Tribunal that minimum penalty be imposed. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in imposing the penalty.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disbelief of returned figures leading to enhancement of gross income.
2. Imposition of penalty and recovery of dues.
3. Confirmation of addition of expenses over the marriage.
4. Imposition of penalty based on dishonest intention.

Issue 1: Disbelief of returned figures leading to enhancement of gross income:
The appellant, a doctor and gynaecologist, filed returns showing a gross income for the assessment year 1994-95. However, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the returned figures and added amounts spent on the marriage reception and referral income. The appellate authority allowed the appeal, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the decision, leading to the enhancement of gross income. The Tribunal justified the additions based on seized documents and statements made during search and seizure operations.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty and recovery of dues:
The appellant challenged the imposition of penalty, arguing that dishonest intention must be proven for penalty imposition. The Tribunal found the appellant's submissions to be false and imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for misleading the authorities. The Tribunal held that the penalty was justified due to the appellant's contradictory stands and dishonest intentions.

Issue 3: Confirmation of addition of expenses over the marriage:
The court examined the expenses incurred on the marriage reception of the appellant's daughter. Despite the appellant's claim that the expenses were covered by her father-in-law, the court found the claim to be false based on documentary evidence. The court upheld the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 as expenses over the marriage, relying on materials seized during search and seizure operations.

Issue 4: Imposition of penalty based on dishonest intention:
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty imposition on the appellant for creating a fictitious story to avoid lawful taxation. The Tribunal found the appellant to be mendacious and capable of taking contradictory stands with dishonest intentions. The penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) after considering the appellant's attempts to mislead the authorities.

The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the additions to the gross income and penalties imposed. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and concluded that the decisions were based on factual findings and documentary evidence. The appeals were dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000 to be realized along with the recovery of tax due.