2015 (11) TMI 387 - HC - Income Tax

Income from seconds - Whether the transaction of seconds having been recorded in the normal course in the ledger maintained, the income therefrom for period April 1, 2002, to September 12, 2002, was excludible from the block assessment in the light of the provisions of section 158BA ? - Held that - The learned counsel admits that the appellant is maintaining two sets of accounts which is not permissible in law merely because subsequent to the search held on September 12, 2002, the assessee has filed the returns for the assessment year 2003-04 disclosing the amount of ₹ 1,64,158 held to be undisclosed income, would not carry any conviction. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel on section 158BA and annexure C said to be a document maintained by the assessee-firm disclosing the details of the said undisclosed income is not acceptable since the said document is very vague, without having the details of dates and the proof of the transaction said to have been effected with the parties except the parties names and the amount. Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on annexure C, to bring this document under section 158BA(3) of the Act which provides that undisclosed income, if recorded on or before the date of search or requisition in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous years shall not be included in the block period. We are unable to appreciate this argument advanced by the learned counsel. No law permits maintenance of two sets of accounts, i.e., one unaccounted and the other accounted. Such scheme of maintaining two different sets of accounts is totally forbidden in law and no credential value can be given to such illegal accounts maintained by the assessee. At no stretch of imagination, this document at annexure C would be considered as other documents maintained in the normal course to exclude from the block period. - Decided against the assessee Transactions with Kaveri Bar -unexplained investment of the appellant in block assess ment under section 158B(b) - Held that - It is admitted fact that Sri Elias Gerald D Silva has given the statement before the Departmental authorities on September 16, 2004, wherein it is stated that he had received ₹ 2,50,000 in cash on February 18, 2002. Now, the case of the assessee-firm is that two partners of M/s. Kaveri Bar had made the payment to Sri Elias Gerald D Silva and the assessee-firm is no way concerned with the said transaction and the Departmental authorities have wrongly held it to be the unexplained investment of the assessee which has been affirmed by the Tribunal without appreciating the material on record in a proper perspective. The Tribunal has considered this issue at length and has come to the conclusion that the partnership deed of Kaveri Bar dated August 27, 2002, was drawn on a stamp paper dated March 31, 1999, purchased by the assessee-firm and the circumstances create a doubt regarding the genuineness of the said partnership deed relied on by the assessee. After a detailed examination of the documents, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the assessee-firm has failed to explain the source of the amount of ₹ 2,50,000 paid to Sri Elias Gerald D Silva. These are pure questions of facts and the findings given on these factual aspects cannot be interfered by us in this appeal. - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of income from 'seconds' in block assessment.
2. Exclusion of income from 'seconds' recorded in the ledger from block assessment.
3. Addition of unexplained investment in block assessment.

Issue 1: Inclusion of income from 'seconds' in block assessment
The appellant challenged the inclusion of income from 'seconds' in the block assessment for the period April 1, 2002, to September 12, 2002. The appellant argued that the income was declared in the regular return filed for the assessment year 2003-04 and was recorded in the books of account, thus falling outside the block period as per section 158BA(3) of the Income-tax Act. However, the court found that maintaining two sets of accounts, one accounted and one unaccounted, is illegal. The court held that the document provided by the appellant was vague and did not meet the criteria to be excluded from the block period under section 158BA(3).

Issue 2: Exclusion of income from 'seconds' recorded in the ledger
The appellant contended that the income from 'seconds' recorded in the ledger should be excluded from the block assessment. However, the court found that the appellant's argument of maintaining two sets of accounts was not permissible in law. The court emphasized that illegal accounts cannot be given any credibility and that maintaining two different sets of accounts is prohibited by law. Therefore, the court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the exclusion of this income from the block assessment.

Issue 3: Addition of unexplained investment in block assessment
The appellant disputed the addition of an unexplained investment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in a firm, contending that the payment made was not from the appellant-firm. The court noted that the partner of the firm had admitted undisclosed income and offered it for tax, but discrepancies arose regarding the unexplained investment. The court found that the appellant failed to explain the source of the payment made to the individual, leading to the conclusion that it constituted unexplained investment by the appellant-firm. The court upheld the decision of the Tribunal on this issue, stating that it involved questions of fact that could not be interfered with in the appeal.

In conclusion, the court answered the questions of law against the appellant and in favor of the Revenue, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved in the judgment.