9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon itself the responsibility to go into the question whether the findings of facts reached by the tribunal are correct. The only question that the High Court was called upon to determine was whether on the facts found by the tribunal, the receipt in question should not have been considered by the tribunal as Revenue receipt. Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record and in particular the answers given by the assessee in his statement recorded by the Revenue Authority during the search and thereafter. Even if two views were possible, it would not be possible for to overturn the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal particularly when Tribunal had taken into consideration all relevant evidence. It is not a case of no evidence and in that view of the matter, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be categorized as perverse - In the result, Appeal is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2000 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2012 - AKIL KURESHI AND MS. HARSHA DEVANI, JJ. R.K. Patel for the Appellant. Pranav G. Desai for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. - The assessee has filed this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.1990. The Revenue Authority, thereupon, approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in part and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but granted certain reliefs to the assessee as compared to what the Assessing Officer had computed the total income. In effect, the Tribunal reduced the income of the assessee by a sum of Rs.10 lacs. With respect to undisclosed income, the Tribunal computed the same at Rs. 27,31,165/- inclusive of Rs. 6 lacs disclosed by the assessee in the return. 6. It is this order of the Tribunal which the assessee has challenged before us on various grounds. Mr. R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee took us through the detailed discussion on record contained in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as well as by the Tribunal. He pointed out that the main ground on which the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal sustained the addition under the head of undisclosed income was the loose paper found during the search and the statement of the assessee recorded during such search. The learned counsel pointed out that the assessee had retracted such a statement at a later stage, which fact was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examine said Shri Bhanwarlal H. Shah. 6.3 The counsel further submitted that the seized paper cannot be a conclusive proof for making the addition. In this respect, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112. 6.4 The counsel lastly submitted that there were certain items in the loose paper (Annexure-12, Item No. 30) which were scored out. Even such entries have been taken into account while computing the undisclosed income of the assessee. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Pranav G. Desai for the respondent-department opposed the appeal contending that the entire issue is factual in nature. The Tribunal has taken into account all relevant factors. To the extent the explanation of the assessee was found acceptable, relief has been granted. The counsel submitted that while dealing with an appeal under section 260A of the Act, such findings of fact cannot be disturbed. 8. The counsel also took us to the decision of the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal to contend that all issues have been properly examined. Evidence on record suggests that the assessee had concealed income. There was sufficient materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be so considered or not is primarily and essentially a question of fact. The decision of such a question of fact must be arrived at without ignoring the material and relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles. Judged by these yardsticks the finding of the Tribunal in this case is unassailable. We are, however, of the view that if a fact-finding authority comes to a conclusion within the above parameters honestly and bona fide, the fact another authority be it the Supreme Court or the High Court may have a different perspective of that question, in our opinion, is no ground to interfere with that finding in an appeal from such a finding. In the new scheme of things, the Tribunals have been entrusted with the authority and the jurisdiction to decide the questions involving determination of the rate of duty of excise or of the value of goods for purposes of assessment. An appeal has been provided to this Court to oversee that the subordinate tribunals act within the law. Merely, because another view might be possible by a competent court of law is no ground for interference under Section 130-E of the Act though in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H Shah. He gave detailed explanation in respect to each entry when asked. He explained that he had given such amounts to various peoples mentioned in the document. 12. With respect to entry of Rs. 7,50,000/-, of course, he explained that the same was a mistake. The real amount was Rs. 75,000/-, which was the cost for purchase of a Maruti Car. 13. We may notice that the assessee's further statement was recorded on 4.11.1987, in which he tried to retract his previous statement to some extent. In a question with respect to such document (Annexure 12, Item No. 30), he stated that 'yes I want to say that because of the raid I had become mentally disturbed. Without understanding the question and without understanding the distinction between capital, income, assets, outstanding. Consequently the my signature for income which has been declared, my capital is not that of 1/3rd of it. Therefore it is my humble request that the assessment of income, wealth may be made judicially. 14. The Assessing Officer took in account the above material computed the undisclosed income of the assessee on the basis of the entries made in the loose paper, but gave credit of Rs. 6 lacs disclosed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the office premises of the assessee. The assessee in his statement during the search, admitted that entries in the said document were made by him in his own handwriting. Such document contained full figures of various amounts and also showing names of various persons who were connected with each entry. In addition to the document, the assessee's own statement recorded on 18.7.1987 was sufficiently clear. Such statement of the assessee was never fully retracted. It is true that in his further statement recorded on 4.11.1987, the assessee did contend that during the raid he was mentally disturbed and without understanding the question, he had given the answers and that his real undisclosed income is not even 1/3rd of what he had disclosed on that day. However, he gave no further elaboration on the question of retraction. Even in such further statement, the assessee did contend that the statement was recorded under coercion, duress and pressure. We may also notice that other than the above noted contents of his statement dated 4.11.1987, till the assessing proceedings started before the Assessing Officer there was no attempt on the part of the assessee to retract his original st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount such amount also while adding up all figures appearing on a page. The assessee himself had not ignored such scored out items while making a total of all amounts on both the sides of the page. 20. To summarize, during the search operation, a note was seized from the business premises of the assessee. Such note was written in his own handwriting. In the note several amounts were written and against each figure, names of persons connected with such amount was mentioned. On both sides of the page, all figures were totalled up. In his statement during the search, the assessee admitted that such amounts represented unaccounted money. He also gave reference to persons whose names were mentioned in the note. After the search was over, the assessee did not retract the statement for a long time. Only during his further statement recorded on 4.11.1987, he made an attempt to suggest that the amount contained in the note did not represent unaccounted money. He, however, gave no further explanation with respect to different figures found in the note and the names of persons mentioned therein. He also did not explain his previous statement recorded during the search. Thereafter, there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch factual findings, it would not be possible for us, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income-tax Act to upturn such findings. We may remind ourselves of the finality of the tribunal's factual findings. In the case of Karam Chand Thapar Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 4 SCC 124, the Apex Court reiterated that the Income-tax Tribunal is a final fact finding authority and the High Court would not be justified in reexamining the material on record and reversing the Tribunal's finding of fact. It was held as under: "In our opinion, it was wholly impermissible for the High Court to disturb the findings of fact reached by the tribunal. The tribunal was the final fact final authority. The facts found by it could have been challenged only on certain recognised grounds. Neither the High Court nor this Court has jurisdiction to re-appreciate the material on record to find out whether the facts found by the tribunal are correct or not. The High Court should not have taken upon itself the responsibility to go into the question whether the findings of facts reached by the tribunal are correct. The only question that the High Court was called upon to determine wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
