2017 (1) TMI 173 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - unexplained silver bars discovered in search - Held that - When the material which has been recovered for the rental premises of the assessee, the same is added to his income as a natural consequence and thus loss by confiscation by the DRI official of the Custom Department is business loss. In view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. Piara Singh 1980 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court , the issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the issue referred by the Tribunal is decided in favour of the assessee.In view of the answer to the reference, penalty order of the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding both the matters together as one issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of sec 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding ownership of silver bars and unexplained investment.
2. Distinction of legal precedents in determining loss on account of confiscation of silver bars.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The case involved the assessee deriving income from a business involving silver trading and facing allegations of owning silver bars discovered during a search operation. The Tribunal referred two questions to the Court regarding the ownership of the silver bars and the addition of unexplained investment under sec 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant's counsel did not press the first question due to concurrent findings but argued against the addition based on legal precedents. The respondent cited various decisions in support. The Court opined that the recovered material from the rental premises should be added to the assessee's income, leading to the confiscation loss being considered a business loss. Relying on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Piara Singh, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue.

Issue 2: The second question revolved around distinguishing legal precedents to determine the loss on account of confiscation of silver bars. The appellant's counsel argued against the need to answer this question based on specific judgments. However, the respondent cited different decisions supporting their stance. Ultimately, the Court's decision in favor of the assessee on the first issue led to the penalty order being quashed and remitted back to the Tribunal for a consolidated decision. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the order to be placed in the respective files.

In conclusion, the Court's judgment favored the assessee based on the interpretation of sec 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the treatment of confiscation loss as a business loss, aligning with relevant legal precedents and leading to the quashing of the penalty order.