2017 (11) TMI 686 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained gifts - Held that - The argument with regard to the permission to the assessee for inspection of material, the Tribunal has observed that the fact reveals that a gift of ₹ 3,00,000/- has been received but the same has not been disclosed by the assessee and since the intimation from the investigation unit is an administrative in nature therefore the same cannot be permitted to be demonstrated to the assessee. The claim of the appellant/ assessee is that the inspection of record is essential for disposal of the case has been rejected. At the end the Tribunal has held that since the assessee has failed to produce the donors as well as the creditworthiness of the donors whereas various opportunities were allowed to the appellant, which the appellant failed to furnish any explanation, there is no option but to confirm the order passed by the authorities below. No illegality in the orders of the authorities below as well as in the impugned order of the Tribunal and since the assessee/appellant has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the donors as well as failed to place any evidence in support of her contention in respect of the issue which are raised before the Tribunal therefore we find no error in the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of notice under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Consideration of not issuing copies of the return with annexures.
3. Requirement of filing a revised return after receiving notice under Section 148.
4. Correctness of justifying the notice under Section 148 by Tribunal.
5. Confirmation of additions regarding unexplained gift and credit in bank account.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant challenging the initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2000-01. The appellant contended that the notice was not justified as she had already filed her return. However, the assessing authority found discrepancies in the appellant's income, specifically related to a bogus gift of ?3,00,000. The appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations, leading to the initiation of proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the order, emphasizing the appellant's failure to prove the genuineness of the credits.

2. The appellant raised concerns about not receiving copies of the return with annexures and argued that this issue was vital. However, the Tribunal considered this an administrative decision and not within its purview. The Tribunal upheld the assessing authority's decision to proceed with the case based on the available information and the appellant's responses.

3. Another issue raised was whether the appellant should have filed a revised return after receiving the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal held that the appellant had the option to file a revised return or object to the proceedings but failed to do so. This failure to respond appropriately was considered by the Tribunal in upholding the initiation of proceedings.

4. The Tribunal justified the notice under Section 148 by stating that there were no pending assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer after a specific date. The Tribunal found no grounds for interference in the orders of the authorities below, as the appellant had not provided evidence to support her contentions regarding the alleged unexplained gift and credits in the bank account.

5. Lastly, the Tribunal confirmed the additions regarding the unexplained gift and credits in the bank account. The appellant's inability to prove the creditworthiness of the donors or provide evidence supporting her case led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that since the appellant failed to produce necessary evidence despite multiple opportunities, the orders of the authorities below were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no illegality in the orders of the authorities below. The appellant's failure to substantiate her claims and provide necessary evidence resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, with no legal questions remaining for consideration.