2012 (4) TMI 204 - HC - Income Tax

Search & seizure documents seized one of the document contained working of interest @ 3% per month on total sum of Rs.3 lac - assessee contended that said documents belonged to his father who in turn denied knowledge of papers addition made for principal and interest on presumption that assessee was involved in the business of financing Held that - Findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence on record and any reasonable individual, having regard to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, would arrive at the same conclusion. The aforesaid finding cannot be said to be one based on No Evidence nor can that finding be described as a perverse finding of fact Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of undisclosed income based on recovered documents during a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The dispute arose when certain documents, including one labeled 'BS-1,' were found during a search at the assessee's residence. These papers detailed interest calculations on a sum of Rs.3 lac at 3% per month. The assessee claimed ignorance about the document, stating it belonged to their father. However, the Assessing Officer, upon investigation, found discrepancies in the explanation provided by the assessee. The officer noted that the interest calculations were meticulously prepared, indicating a financial transaction involving the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer taxed the principal amount and interest for the relevant assessment year.

Upon appeal, both the CIT Appeal and the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. The High Court observed that the authorities rightly invoked the presumption under Section 292C of the Act based on the recovered materials during the search. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were a result of evidence evaluation and not devoid of merit. It was concluded that the Tribunal's decision did not warrant interference under Section 260A of the Act as it was not based on 'No Evidence' or considered a perverse finding of fact.

Ultimately, the High Court summarily dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions. The Court also addressed related appeals concerning interest imposed on similar grounds, dismissing them as no substantial legal questions were identified. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence evaluation, statutory presumptions, and the limited scope of interference under Section 260A in challenging factual findings based on recovered documents during income tax assessments.