2010 (8) TMI 119 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed sources - The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 9,30,500 and Rs. 15,10,000 on account of various deposits in the bank accounts and Rs. 36,544 on account of interest accrued in the bank accounts. The total assessment was made at Rs. 24,65,040 plus agricultural income of Rs. 1,32,000. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short the CIT (A)) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commis- sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Held - The above findings are pure findings of fact which had been recorded on the basis of appreciation of material on record. Learned counsel, however, could not point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded which may warrant interference by this court. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Substantial questions of law raised by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Challenge by the assessee regarding additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessee raised substantial questions of law challenging the confirmation of orders finalizing the assessment under section 144 without conforming to the proviso to section 144(1). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the orders treating deposits in banks as income from unknown sources despite being explained as agricultural income. The Tribunal also confirmed the treatment of the son's income from horse breeding and marriage gift as unexplained income. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 9,30,500 deposited in the bank account, Rs. 8,00,000 received as a marriage gift, and Rs. 3,10,000 cash deposit. The Tribunal remanded the issue of the Rs. 3,10,000 deposit for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2:
The challenge by the assessee-appellant was regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the additions of Rs. 9,30,500, Rs. 8,00,000, and Rs. 3,10,000. The addition of Rs. 9,30,500 was made due to undisclosed income deposited in the bank account, which the Tribunal affirmed. The addition of Rs. 8,00,000, alleged to be a gift, was upheld as the explanation was deemed unreliable. The issue of the Rs. 3,10,000 cash deposit was remanded for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, stating that the findings were based on the appreciation of material on record and no illegality or perversity was found. The court found no substantial question of law warranting interference and dismissed the appeal.