2017 (3) TMI 435 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of total income - addition to ncome in hands of assessee - Held that - As assessee was real owner of the business carried on in the name of M/s Industrial Agencies, Nagpur and Shri S.J. Baid was only nominal owner of the business. It was held that actual business was controlled by the assessee and Shri S.J. Baid was only signing the papers as per directions of the assessee. Under these circumstances the substantive addition has been rightly made in the hands of the assessee. Nothing has been brought before us to negate the well reasoned factual findings of Ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, we have no other option but to uphold the order of CIT(A). As a result, all the grounds are dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Determination of total income and upholding the demand raised by the Assessing Officer (A.O.).
2. Consideration of the appellant as the proprietor of Industrial Agencies, Nagpur.
3. Non-consideration of the Dossier Report by the CIT(A).
4. Assumption by CIT(A) regarding the substantive addition in the case of Shri S.J. Baid.
5. Reliance on the statement recorded under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Total Income and Upholding the Demand Raised by the A.O.:
The appellant contested the decision of the CIT(A) for upholding the A.O.'s determination of total income of ?72,79,480 and the demand of ?49,24,665. The Tribunal noted that the matter was previously remitted back to the A.O. by the ITAT for reconsideration. The A.O. provided adequate opportunities to the assessee to submit relevant documents. However, the assessee failed to produce the ITAT order in the case of Shri S.J. Baid, leading the A.O. to confirm the addition. The CIT(A) upheld this decision after a detailed examination, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. Consideration of the Appellant as the Proprietor of Industrial Agencies, Nagpur:
The appellant argued against being considered the proprietor of Industrial Agencies, Nagpur, instead of Shri S.J. Baid. The A.O. and CIT(A) relied on the statement of Shri S.J. Baid and other evidence to conclude that the appellant was the actual controller of the business, with Shri S.J. Baid acting as a nominal owner. The Tribunal found no reason to overturn these factual findings, thus confirming the substantive addition in the appellant's hands.

3. Non-Consideration of the Dossier Report by the CIT(A):
The appellant claimed that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the Dossier Report, which indicated that the Tribunal order arose from a protective assessment of Shri S.J. Baid. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the Dossier Report did not provide sufficient grounds to alter the substantive addition made in the appellant's case. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to produce the ITAT order in the case of Shri S.J. Baid, which was crucial for reconsideration.

4. Assumption by CIT(A) Regarding the Substantive Addition in the Case of Shri S.J. Baid:
The CIT(A) assumed that the substantive addition in the case of Shri S.J. Baid could not be confirmed without further investigation into the appellant's case. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the appellant did not provide any evidence to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal emphasized that the substantive addition was rightly made in the appellant's hands based on the available evidence.

5. Reliance on the Statement Recorded Under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant contended that the A.O. and CIT(A) relied on the statement of Shri S.J. Baid recorded under section 131 without considering the appellant's submissions. The Tribunal observed that the A.O. and CIT(A) had duly considered the appellant's submissions and found them unconvincing. The Tribunal noted that the statement of Shri S.J. Baid was corroborated by other evidence, justifying the reliance on it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), confirming the substantive addition in the appellant's hands and rejecting the appellant's arguments on all grounds. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to provide necessary evidence, such as the ITAT order in the case of Shri S.J. Baid, which was crucial for reconsideration. The decision was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of the hearing.

← Previous Next →