2016 (11) TMI 893 - SC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Held that - In the present case, in the face of the clear findings that the loan applications were processed by the Officers of the Assessee and the loan transactions in question of the aforesaid 37 persons were also handled really by the Assessee and further in view of the categorical finding that the loan amounts were not reflected in the returns of the 37 persons in question, we do not see how the High Court could have taken the above view and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. It has been pointed out before us that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court fresh assessment proceedings have been finalized by the Assessing Officer. The said exercise has been done in the absence of any interim order of this Court. However, merely because fresh assessment proceedings has been carried out in the meantime it would certainly not preclude the Court from judging the validity and correctness of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. For the reasons stated, we cannot uphold the order of the Division Bench passed in the Writ Appeal in question. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Division Bench and consequently all further orders passed pursuant thereto.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order dated 20th March, 2012 in Writ Appeal No.1611 of 2008 reversing the judgment and order of the learned single judge dated 10th September, 2008 in Writ Petition No.10507 of 2007.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case was the challenge to the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, which reversed the decision of the learned single judge regarding the addition of an amount claimed by the Assessee as legally liable for deduction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (C.I.T.) had found that the Assessee had shown sudden trade creditors without matching transactions, indicating a fraudulent practice of creating accounts by way of name lending. The single judge and the C.I.T. had both upheld this finding. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed these findings, stating that the 37 persons who had advanced the loan to the Assessee should have been given notice. The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench's jurisdiction in a Writ Appeal is primarily one of adjudication of questions of law and should not lightly disturb the concurrent findings of fact. The Court found that the loan applications were processed by the Assessee's officers, the loan transactions were handled by the Assessee, and the loan amounts were not reflected in the returns of the 37 persons, leading to the conclusion that the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer.

2. The Supreme Court further observed that despite fresh assessment proceedings being finalized by the Assessing Officer following the High Court's order, the validity and correctness of the Division Bench's order could still be judged. The Court held that the Division Bench's decision in the Writ Appeal was not sustainable and proceeded to allow the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order and all further orders made in consequence. This comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the judgment highlights the legal intricacies and the Supreme Court's meticulous examination of the facts and law to arrive at a just decision.