9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 440 - HC - Income TaxSearch The Assessing Officer assessed the total consideration in respect of agricultural land purchased by the assessee was Rs.51,76,200 by holding that dot in between the figures had no meaning. For example, against architect where the figure of 140.00 is mentioned, it actually meant Rs. 14,000. The Assessing Officer, however, issued letter dated September 16, 1997 requiring the company to show cause as to why Rs. 51,76,200 be not treated as the company s unexplained investment. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the true interpretation of section 158BB(b) of the Act, there was any material for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in upholding that loose paper annexure A-6 page 34 in the total of which was Rs.51,762 found on search represented the sum of Rs. 51,76,200 was the assessee s undisclosed income for the block period relating the same to the assessment year 1996-97? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law to hold that the sum of Rs. 8,86,794 representing the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of jewellery found on search represented the appellant s undisclosed investment for the assessment year 1997-98.? Held that set aside the order of Tribunal and remand back the matter for re-consideration.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loose sheet of paper (Annexure A-6) found during the search represented the assessee's undisclosed income of Rs. 51,76,200 for the assessment year 1996-97. 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 8,86,794 representing the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of jewellery found during the search was the appellant's undisclosed income for the assessment year 1997-98. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Re: Question No. 1 1. Contention of the Appellant: - The appellant argued that Annexure A-6, a loose sheet of paper, was unsigned, undated, and lacked specific details such as land particulars, making it a "dumb document" with no evidentiary value. - The appellant contended that the document did not relate to any purchase of land worth Rs. 51,76,200 and that the figures mentioned (e.g., Rs. 140.00 for architect) were misinterpreted by the Assessing Officer (AO) as Rs. 14,000. - The appellant emphasized that the land was purchased by the company, not by him personally, and the company had duly recorded the transaction in its books of account. - The appellant cited the case of CIT v. Girish Chaudhary, where a similar loose sheet was deemed to have no evidentiary value. 2. Findings of the Assessing Officer: - The AO interpreted the figures on the loose sheet as being in hundreds, leading to the conclusion that the total consideration for the land was Rs. 51,76,200. - The AO linked the document to the purchase of agricultural land by the company, noting that the company had not started its functions and thus could not have generated unaccounted income. - The AO's conclusion was based on the improbability of the expenses being in hundreds (e.g., architect fee of Rs. 140) and the context provided by other documents (pages 4 and 5 of Annexure A-6) suggesting land rates of Rs. 17 to 20 lakhs per acre. 3. Tribunal's Decision: - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the AO's findings, agreeing that the figures represented actual expenses and that the document was connected to the land purchase. - The ITAT noted that the document was found in the appellant's possession, and the appellant failed to disprove its contents or provide an alternative explanation. - The ITAT confirmed the addition of Rs. 51,76,200 as the appellant's undisclosed income and deleted the protective addition in the hands of the company. 4. High Court's Analysis: - The High Court found that the concurrent findings of the AO, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and ITAT were based on a detailed analysis of the facts and materials. - The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the document was a "dumb paper" and found no violation of natural justice, as the appellant had the opportunity to explain the document's contents. - The Court concluded that the findings were not perverse and upheld the addition of Rs. 51,76,200 as the appellant's undisclosed income. Re: Question No. 2 1. Contention of the Appellant: - The appellant argued that the jewellery worth Rs. 10,96,379 belonged to his mother-in-law and was kept with him for safe custody, which should be excluded from the total jewellery found. - The appellant contended that the ITAT failed to consider the evidence and correspondence exchanged with the AO and relied solely on the AO's findings without independent analysis. 2. Findings of the Assessing Officer: - The AO found jewellery worth Rs. 54,70,063 during the search and noted that the appellant and his family had disclosed jewellery worth Rs. 30,05,351 in their wealth-tax returns. - The AO rejected the appellant's claim regarding the mother-in-law's jewellery, stating that it had already been considered in the hands of the appellant's wife, Smt. Urmila Gambhir. - The AO calculated the unexplained jewellery at Rs. 15,31,210 and, after reducing the surrendered amount of Rs. 6,44,416, made an addition of Rs. 8,86,794 as the appellant's undisclosed income. 3. Tribunal's Decision: - The ITAT affirmed the AO's findings without detailed discussion, stating that the jewellery belonging to the mother-in-law had been considered in the hands of Smt. Urmila Gambhir. - The ITAT dismissed the appellant's ground, agreeing with the AO's assessment. 4. High Court's Analysis: - The High Court noted that the ITAT failed to provide independent reasons and did not consider the appellant's explanation regarding the mother-in-law's jewellery. - The Court found that the ITAT's order lacked detailed analysis and was based solely on the AO's findings. - The Court set aside the ITAT's order on this issue and remitted the case back to the ITAT for reconsideration with proper analysis and consideration of the appellant's explanation. Conclusion: - The appeal was partly allowed. The addition of Rs. 51,76,200 as undisclosed income was upheld, while the issue of unexplained jewellery worth Rs. 8,86,794 was remitted back to the ITAT for reconsideration.
|
