9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 32 - HC - Income TaxCash Credits - Tribunal was not justified in holding that the facts relating to the cash receipts were not borne out by the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the order of the learned Tribunal was not based on record, it is perverse - Whether the purported findings of the Tribunal upholding the addition of Rs. 1,05,625 on account of loan taken by the assessee from Subh Karan Pincha are based on any material and/or have been arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and/or by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and/or are otherwise arbitrary, erroneous and perverse? - we set aside the order of the learned Tribunal upholding the addition of Rs. 1,05,625 on account of loan taken by the assessee and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider it afresh
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 2,95,002 as income in the hands of the assessee. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,05,625 on account of unexplained loan credit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 2,95,002 as Income in the Hands of the Assessee Facts and Contentions: The assessee, a director of M/s. Cosmopolitan Construction (P) Ltd. (CCPL), contended that the sum of Rs. 2,95,002, reflected in a seized diary marked UPD 10, belonged to CCPL and was already taxed in CCPL's hands. CCPL had disclosed this amount to the Settlement Commission for the assessment year 1989-90. The Tribunal, however, upheld the addition of Rs. 2,95,002 in the hands of the assessee, stating that the cash transactions remained unexplained and were not accounted for by CCPL. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the distinction between the disclosure before the Settlement Commission and the specific findings of the Assessing Officer regarding the cash transactions. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, noting that the cash transactions remained out of CCPL's books and were not borne out of the Settlement Commission's order. High Court's Analysis: The High Court examined whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition despite the disclosure made by CCPL before the Settlement Commission. The Court noted that the identity of the persons and the genuineness of the transactions were established. The Court held that until it was identified that a particular entry in UPD 10 was not included in the settlement disclosure, no definite conclusion could be made that the amount was not included in the settlement. The benefit should accrue to the assessee in such a case. Judgment: The High Court found the Tribunal's order perverse and held that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the addition. The Court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and against the Revenue. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 1,05,625 on Account of Unexplained Loan Credit Facts and Contentions: The assessee claimed that a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 was taken from one S.K. Pincha, which was used to make a payment to RICCO. The amount, along with interest, was credited in the assessee's books in Pincha's name. The Tribunal upheld the addition, stating that the assessee failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made an investment in purchasing land at Bhiwadi amounting to Rs. 1,05,625. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal upheld the addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. High Court's Analysis: The High Court accepted that the affidavit provided by the creditor was incomplete but contained the name, address, and income-tax file number of the creditor. The Court held that it was incumbent upon the Revenue to enquire about the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor. The Revenue failed to apply its discretion rationally under section 68 of the Act. Judgment: The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order upholding the addition and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of the observations made in the judgment. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal in part, ruling in favor of the assessee on the first issue and remanding the second issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. No order as to costs was made.
|
