9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 49 - HC - Income TaxSearch and seizure - undisclosed income - AO estimated much more income than assessee disclosed - CIT(A) allowed the appeal in part. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal Held that - Both the authorities (CIT(A) and ITAT) have considered the materials on record and estimated the income. The question of estimate of income is the question of fact. In the circumstances no substantial question is involved in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Issues: Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against Tribunal's order for block period 1.4.1987 to 7.10.1997.
The case involved an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the Tribunal's order related to the block period from 1.4.1987 to 7.10.1997. The respondent, a doctor, had undisclosed income discovered during a search and seizure operation at their residential premises and Nursing Home. Patients revealed paying more than what was mentioned in the receipts found during the search. The Assessing Authority estimated the undisclosed income for the block period at Rs.1,19,78,000/-. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who partially allowed the appeal. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the Appeal's order but remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for recalculating the undisclosed income. The learned Standing Counsel argued that evidence showed suppression of professional income for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997, indicating a pattern of income suppression. The Counsel contended that the earlier years' additions were unjustifiably limited to Rs.50,000 only, as the assessee had disclosed Rs.12 lakh of unexplained income for the period 1.4.1987 to 7.10.1997, suggesting income suppression in earlier years too. The High Court reviewed the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal, noting that both authorities had assessed the income based on the evidence. The Court emphasized that the estimation of income is a factual matter, and in this case, no substantial question of law was found. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.
|
