2020 (5) TMI 213 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - Investment in mines - HELD THAT - Order has been passed by the Tribunal after appreciation of all material on record including statement recorded during the course u/s 132(4) which carries the evidentiary value, the retraction made after made during the course of assessment proceedings after a considerable lapse of time which was not accepted, the post search statement, the contents of the agreement found at the premises of the assessee during the course of search. The assessee has contested the said findings of the Tribunal before the Hon ble High Court and the same has been further examined by the Hon ble High Court and no finding has been recorded by the Hon ble High Court in terms of any perversity in the order so passed by the Tribunal which has been passed after considering the material available on record. The Hon ble High Court has also held that The Court is also of the view that the initial burden of showing that the transaction had not taken place and statement made earlier was wholly incorrect or that the documents recovered did not support the findings, was not dislodged. We therefore find that the findings of facts of the Tribunal have been affirmed by the Hon ble High Court and in such circumstances, there is no basis for entertaining the present Misc. Application so filed by the assessee u/s 254(2). Misc. Applications so filed by the respective assessees are hereby dismissed

Issues:
1. Challenge to the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 345/JP/2016 and 344/JP/2016.
2. Consideration of post-search investigations and statements recorded u/s 131 and 132(4) of the Act.
3. Interpretation of the Ikrarnama and its relevance to the investments made in mines.
4. Appeal dismissal by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and its impact on the Tribunal’s order.
5. Examination of the Tribunal’s findings, retraction made during assessment proceedings, and evidentiary value of statements and documents.
6. Confirmation of Tribunal’s findings by the Hon’ble High Court and the significance of concurrent findings of fact.

Analysis:
1. The miscellaneous applications were filed by the assessee challenging the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal. The AR argued discrepancies in the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the lack of confirmation by one party regarding admissions made by another during post-search investigations. The AR also contested the reliance on the ld. CIT(A)'s observations regarding the Ikrarnama, highlighting the absence of evidence linking investments to the mines. The request was for a fresh hearing due to apparent mistakes in the Tribunal's order.

2. The AR further argued that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court's dismissal of the appeal did not preclude the Tribunal from entertaining rectification applications. The AR contended that the issue involved questions of fact rather than substantial questions of law, citing relevant decisions. In contrast, the DR supported the Tribunal's order, stating that it considered all facts and submissions before issuing a detailed decision. The DR referenced the High Court's endorsement of the lower authorities' decisions based on factual analysis.

3. The Tribunal examined the matter thoroughly, focusing on the statements recorded during the search, admissions of investments, and the contents of the agreement found. The Tribunal emphasized the evidentiary value of the statements, the unrebutted post-search statement, and the unaccepted retraction during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds of appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)'s findings.

4. The Hon’ble High Court confirmed the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the factual basis of the decisions. The High Court highlighted the importance of the documents recovered during the search, the initial burden of disproving transactions, and the validity of concurrent findings of fact. The High Court's decision endorsed the Tribunal's detailed analysis and factual conclusions.

5. The Tribunal's order, supported by the High Court, was deemed conclusive after considering all available evidence and statements. The High Court reiterated the importance of not dislodging the initial burden of proof regarding transactions and earlier statements. The Tribunal's findings were affirmed, with no indication of perversity in the order, leading to the dismissal of the miscellaneous applications.

6. Both miscellaneous applications were ultimately dismissed, as the Tribunal's findings, supported by the High Court, were deemed well-founded and conclusive based on the evidence and factual analysis presented. The decisions underscored the importance of thorough examination and factual consistency in tax matters.

← Previous Next →