2006 (8) TMI 127 - HC - Income Tax

Transaction reflected in the seized register undisclosed income - Whether Tribunal in regard to the transaction reflected in the seized register marked as SD-71 the Tribunal has committed an error in not assessing the profit of the assessee on the said transaction? held that the entire amount of the business of the assessee (respondent) i.e. Rs. 2, 82, 72, 555 for the year 1991-92 cannot certainly be considered as income of the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 and also that there is absolutely no basis for coming to the finding by the learned Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 50, 000 shall be taken as the net profit from the undisclosed transaction i.e. Rs. 2, 82, 72, 555 for the assessment year 1991-92. held that that it will be proper and justified to remit back the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication of what would be the net income out of the entire amount of Rs. 2, 82, 72, 555 and also the amount of tax payable by the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 1991-92 after ascertaining the amount of income and net profit for the assessment year 1991-92.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Interpretation of findings by the Tribunal regarding a transaction reflected in a seized register
- Assessment of profit of the assessee based on the transaction in question

Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court pertains to an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 1991-92. The appeal was admitted to address the question of whether the Tribunal erred in not assessing the profit of the assessee based on the findings related to a specific transaction reflected in a seized register marked as SD-71. The facts leading to the appeal involve a search and seizure operation in which various books of account and documents were seized, including documents related to the assessee for the assessment year in question.

The entries marked K and P in the seized register SD-71 were scrutinized, and the respondent failed to clarify these entries despite opportunities. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had treated the alleged purchases recorded in entry K as the income of the assessee and estimated the net profit suppressed from unrecorded sales. The first appellate authority later deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, leading to a challenge by the Revenue authority before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, in its order, concluded that the entire purchase reflected in the seized register SD-71 does not represent the profits of the assessee. It also disagreed with the Assessing Officer's estimated profit and directed a modification of the assessment order. The Revenue authority appealed this decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in not considering the unrecorded transactions as income from undisclosed sources and in estimating the net profit.

The High Court, after considering the contentions of both parties and the records, held that the entire amount of the business for the year in question cannot be considered as the income of the assessee. It also found no basis for the Tribunal's determination of the net profit from the undisclosed transaction. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed the case to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the income and net profit for the assessment year.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer to determine the net income and tax payable by the assessee for the relevant assessment year.