2013 (12) TMI 482 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed investment - Held that - The A.O. and CIT(A) have taken the different methods for calculating the initial investment in the form of gold - Different figures were emerged as undisclosed investment in purchases - The facts are quite contradictory, as different figures were claimed by the counsels during the course of arguments - The same needs fresh determination - The Tribunal has not examined properly the facts pertaining to the availability of investment - The finding of facts are not clear and the material available on record was ignored - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication. Cash found during search - Held that - The cash belonged to the assessee s relative - The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard - The said affidavit which is self explanatory was accepted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal and accordingly addition in question was deleted - Following Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam And Another Versus Controller Of Estate Duty 2001 (2) TMI 132 - SUPREME Court - The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of undisclosed investment in purchases during the financial year 1998-99.
2. Addition of unexplained cash found during the search operation.

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of Rs.22,35,783 as undisclosed investment in purchases during the financial year 1998-99. The A.O. observed undisclosed sales of jewelry, leading to the computation of undisclosed purchases. The A.O. made an addition for the undisclosed investment, which was later reduced by the First Appellate Authority and completely deleted by the Tribunal. The dispute revolved around the calculation of available funds in the form of gold and its value, with conflicting methods used by the A.O. and CIT(A). The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for a fresh determination based on proper examination of facts and material. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a de novo decision within three months.

Issue 2:
Regarding the addition of Rs.5,75,000 of unexplained cash found during the search, the assessee claimed the amount belonged to a visiting guest, Dr. T.K.Rastogi, supported by an affidavit. The affidavit was accepted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, leading to the deletion of the addition. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the Tribunal as the final fact-finding authority. The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order, affirming the deletion of the Rs.5,75,000 addition. The answer to this substantial question of law favored the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the department's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision on the undisclosed investment issue and affirming the deletion of the unexplained cash addition. The Court emphasized the importance of proper examination of facts and material in tax matters and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on factual verification.