2017 (4) TMI 527 - HC - Income Tax

Advance receipt for sale of land - Held that - Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in the absence of proper evidence being available and based on unverified papers and without there being any evidence substantiating the transactions, if the addition was made, there is no error in the same.We find that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on due appreciation of the evidence and materials that came on record. It is a finding of fact and we see no reason to interfere into the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal as far as this ground is concerned. Addition on undisclosed income for the assessment year 1996-97 - Held that - Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the subject matter of addition was one that was already declared in the regularly filed return before the search operation and, therefore, this could not be a subject matter of block assessment. Under these circumstances, this addition was not permissible. The CIT (Appeals) also have allowed this deduction on this account alone. The Tribunal while doing so did not consider this aspect properly. Once the capital amounting to ₹ 1,79,019/- was reflected in the original returns filed before the block assessment and there was no reopening of the assessment in accordance with law with regard to the original return filed and assessment ordered, the amount could not be added in the block assessment. To that effect, an error has been committed by the Tribunal. Tribunal has committed an error in adding the capital amount as undisclosed assets when in the original regular return filed this was permitted, reopening with this assessment in the block assessment being impermissible, the addition has to be quashed. Payment of receipt of certain amount as gift from appellant s NRI brother - Held that - Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) have found that the assessee has failed to prove that this amount was received as gift from the brother. The concurrent findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal in this regard needs no consideration. To that account also, the appeals stand rejected. Payment of interest under Section 158BFA (1) - Held that - Tribunal has simply recorded a finding that there is delay in filing of the return which is attributable to the assessee and, therefore, interest was rightly assessed. However, while doing so, the Tribunal did not take note of the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, as indicated hereinabove, wherein the delay is attributed to the Department in the matter of submitting photo copies of the seized documents which resulted in delay of filing of the return and if that be so, charging of interest under Section 158BFA (1) was not permissible. Accordingly, this question is answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the delay in filing of the return is not attributable to the assessee and, therefore, interest under Section 158BFA (1) was not chargeable. To that effect also, the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna for block assessment period 1996-97 to 2002-03.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenged a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna for the block assessment period 1996-97 to 2002-03. The Tribunal's decision arose from appeals and cross-appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The first ground of appeal was related to the addition of a sum received as advance for the sale of land, which the Assessing Officer included as income. The Tribunal disallowed this addition, stating it was made without proper evidence. The Tribunal's finding was based on a due appreciation of evidence and materials on record, leading to the rejection of the challenge to this addition.

Another ground of appeal involved the addition of an amount as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal upheld this addition, but it was found that the subject matter was already declared in the regularly filed return before the search operation, making it impermissible for block assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in adding this amount. The appeals were allowed concerning this ground, as the Tribunal's decision was rejected.

The next issue concerned the receipt of a gift from the appellant's brother, which the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) found unproven. The Tribunal concurred with these findings, leading to the rejection of this ground of appeal. Lastly, the question arose regarding the Tribunal's direction for the payment of interest under Section 158BFA(1), which the CIT (Appeals) had disallowed due to delay in filing the return caused by the Department's actions. The Tribunal's decision to charge interest was found erroneous, as the delay was not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in this regard was quashed.

In conclusion, both appeals were allowed in part, with certain aspects of the Tribunal's order being quashed while the remaining part was upheld. The judgment addressed various grounds of appeal, highlighting errors in the Tribunal's decisions and providing detailed reasoning for the outcomes.