2013 (1) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Block assessment - Chapter XIVB Matter of record Opportunity of being heard - Tribunal set aside the assessment and remanded the matter back to the A.O On completion of assessment, assessee contended that the revenue had not produced the assessment records as it would have gone against it Revenue argued that assessee s representative categorically stated that he did not want copies of any statements or documents, since he was having them all Held that - The assessee had, in fact, made an endorsement through his representative that the assessee had all the statements and documents that he required. It is also a matter of record that the assessee was given an opportunity to cross-examine. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and matter remand back to Tribunal to decides on merits. Undisclosed income - Undisclosed investment found during search Assessee had disclosed the income from properties in the return and that the assessee s wife and her son had no source of income Held that - During search did not reveal any material as regards the alleged investments of the assessee in the above-said properties. It is no doubt true that the said properties were in the name of the assessee s wife and his son and the assessee had filed returns admitting the rental income from these properties. In the assessment order that the materials were seized in the course of search, to make the investment made as part of the block assessment proceedings. Hence, unless and until the Revenue had had materials seized at the time of search, the income cannot be claimed as a block assessment. Against revenue Undisclosed investment in shares Held that - Assessee accepted the ownership of the certificates to an extent of Rs.4,00,000/- and accordingly, the same was assessed for the assessment year 1995-96. As the assessee himself had conceded the investment then said sum liable to be deleted. Partly allowed in favour of revenue Undisclosed investment in business Assessee argue that investment was made out from income derived from the agricultural lands relating to assessee s HUF Held that - If any investigation done, apart from the search, reveal certain state of affairs, it is always open to the Revenue to bring it under the regular assessment procedure. Hence, the question whether the assessee had an agricultural income for the purpose of investment in the wine business, certainly is not a subject matter of block assessment. Consequently, agreeing with the Tribunal s view, it is open to the Revenue to consider the said issue in the regular assessment procedure. Against revenue Addition on account of investment in Tandal business A.O. noted that apart from the assessee, there were also two other persons in the business without any capital contribution - Addition made on the basis of daily collection Held that - When the Revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee had been doing the business along with two others. Therefore, questioning the inclusion in the block assessment procedure, the manner of assessment of Rs.27 lakhs is also without any basis. The income from thandal business could not be a subject matter of block assessment. Open to the Revenue to make such investigation as are necessary for the purpose of determining the income that the assessee might have earned in the thandal business. Against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery.
2. Deletion of addition on account of investment and expenditure on improvement of immovable property.
3. Deletion of addition on account of investment in shares.
4. Deletion of addition on account of investment in Tandal business.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery:
The Tribunal set aside the assessment of Rs.1,69,62,679/- as undisclosed income from jewellery, citing that the Revenue did not comply with the remand order to provide necessary documents and cross-examination opportunities. The Tribunal found the additions were based on presumption and suspicion. However, the High Court observed that the assessee's representative had acknowledged possession of all necessary documents and was given a chance to cross-examine Akbar Shah. Consequently, the High Court found no material to support the Tribunal's adverse inference against the Revenue and remanded the issue back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on merits.

2. Deletion of addition on account of investment and expenditure on improvement of immovable property:
The Tribunal canceled the assessment of investments in properties at 76/1, Chinnathambi Street, and 16, Central Cross Street, as there were no seized materials during the search to prove that these investments were made by the assessee using unaccounted income. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, noting that the Revenue had not provided any evidence that the assessee's wife and son had no independent income. Thus, the High Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision but allowed the Revenue to consider the issue in regular assessment proceedings after proper inquiries.

3. Deletion of addition on account of investment in shares:
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to investment in shares, as there were no seized records indicating that the investments were from unaccounted funds. The High Court confirmed this, noting that the assessee had accepted ownership of certificates worth Rs.4,00,000/-, which was assessed for the assessment year 1995-96. Hence, the Tribunal's decision to delete the assessment was upheld.

4. Deletion of addition on account of investment in Tandal business:
The Tribunal pointed out that there were no seized documents to prove that the Tandal business was exclusively conducted by the assessee or that the entire investment was made by him. The High Court noted that the materials came to light during a search of third parties and not the assessee's premises. Given that the business was conducted along with two others, the High Court found no justification for assessing Rs.27,00,000/- solely on the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal's decision to delete the assessment was confirmed, but the Revenue was allowed to investigate further under regular assessment procedures.

Conclusion:
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, remanding the issue of undisclosed investment in jewellery back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The assessments related to investments in immovable properties, shares, and Tandal business were confirmed as not suitable for block assessment but could be pursued under regular assessment procedures. The investment in shares worth Rs.4,00,000/- was upheld as admitted unexplained income.

← Previous Next →