2017 (3) TMI 271 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 69B - unexplained investment in land - Held that - Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69B of the Act, relying upon the statements of two farmers ie., two sellers of the land in which, according to the Department, they admitted of having received on-money in cash. However, it is required to be noted and it is an admitted position that the statements of those two farmers upon which reliance was placed by the Department were not furnished/given to the assessee to controvert the same. Not only that when a specific request was made before the Assessing Officer to permit them to cross examine the aforesaid two farmers, the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Thus as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition under Section 69B of the Act solely relying upon the statements of those two farmers. - Decided against revenue Addition made in the case of partnership firm - individual partners taxed - Double taxation - Held that - Again to make an addition in the case of individual partners would be double taxation, as observed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly deleted the additions made in the case of the partners when a similar addition was made in the case of partnership firm also.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendments in Tax Appeal No. 94 of 2017
2. Common question of law and facts in multiple Tax Appeals
3. Dismissal of appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2007-2008
4. Dismissal of appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2009-2010
5. Dismissal of appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-2009
6. Deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act
7. Deletion of addition made in the case of a partnership firm
8. Cross-examination of farmers by the assessee
9. Double taxation issue in the case of individual partners

Amendments in Tax Appeal No. 94 of 2017:
The High Court granted leave to amend Tax Appeal No. 94 of 2017, with the amendment to be carried out immediately.

Common question of law and facts in multiple Tax Appeals:
The High Court decided on multiple Tax Appeals arising from a common judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the same assessee but for different assessment years.

Dismissal of appeals by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed appeals by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2007-2008, 2009-2010, and 2008-2009, leading to the filing of respective Tax Appeals by the Revenue.

Deletion of additions under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act:
The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69B based on farmers' statements without providing them to the assessee for cross-examination. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete these additions, citing lack of justification for solely relying on the farmers' statements.

Deletion of addition made in the case of a partnership firm:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to delete an addition made in the case of a partnership firm, stating that making a similar addition for individual partners would result in double taxation.

Cross-examination of farmers by the assessee:
The Assessing Officer did not permit the assessee to cross-examine the farmers whose statements were relied upon for making additions, a factor considered by the High Court in upholding the deletion of these additions.

Double taxation issue in the case of individual partners:
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to delete additions made in the case of individual partners, emphasizing that similar additions in the partnership firm's case would lead to double taxation, thus dismissing the Tax Appeals.

This detailed summary covers the various issues addressed in the legal judgment, including the amendments, common questions of law, dismissal of appeals, deletion of additions, cross-examination concerns, and the double taxation issue, providing a comprehensive analysis of the High Court's decision.