2005 (9) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

(ii) Whether Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was the owner of the demand drafts of the aggregate value of Rs. 12,79,433 and addition for the same had rightly been made in its hands, by invoking the provisions of section 69/69A of the Act? (iv) Whether in the absence of any material having been brought on record to show that it was the assessee who made investment in the said demand drafts of the value aggregating Rs. 12,79,433 (Rs. 7,36,921 Rs. 5,42,512) the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of section 69 were applicable and in further taking a view that the source of investment in such demand drafts remained unexplained, so as to attract additions for the same in its hands?

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and unexplained investment in demand drafts under sections 69/69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Burden of proof regarding the source of investment in demand drafts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and unexplained investment in demand drafts under sections 69/69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The appeal concerns the assessment year 1991-92, where the Tribunal held that the assessee was the owner of demand drafts amounting to Rs. 12,79,433, invoking sections 69/69A of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of glassware, required coal for its operations. During searches at the office of the Chief General Manager, Central Coal Field Ltd. (CCL), Ranchi, drafts totaling Rs. 5,42,512 and Rs. 7,36,921 were found linked to the assessee.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 12,79,433 to the assessee's income, reasoning that the assessee failed to substantiate claims that the drafts were funded by M/s. Sweta Coal Sales Corporation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not produce the partner of M/s. Sweta Coal Sales Corporation for cross-examination, and the affidavit provided was deemed inadmissible due to lack of verification. Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized that the legal presumption is that the apparent is real unless proven otherwise, which the assessee failed to do.

2. Burden of proof regarding the source of investment in demand drafts:

The Tribunal and the lower authorities placed the burden of proof on the assessee to substantiate the source of the investment. The assessee claimed that M/s. Sweta Coal Sales Corporation made the investment, supported by an affidavit from its partner, Sri Krishan Kumar Thakkar. However, the assessee failed to produce Thakkar for verification, and summons issued to him were returned unserved. The Tribunal held that the assessee's obligation to establish the genuineness of the transaction was not fulfilled merely by obtaining a summon.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both upheld the Assessing Officer's findings that the investments were made by the assessee from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had admitted that the seized amount should be utilized for adjusting the outstanding tax liability, reinforcing the conclusion that the investments were made by the assessee.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's findings. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the party making the claim, and the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the investment in the drafts. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's order, which was based on material evidence and proper legal presumptions. The appeal was thus dismissed, confirming the addition of Rs. 12,79,433 to the assessee's income under sections 69/69A of the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →