9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of suppliers of fish or the trawler owners. Her failure to do so even prima facie amounts to no explanation at all. Following decision of Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2003 (3) TMI 53 - CALCUTTA High Court], Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormal [1974 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and CIT. v. Mohanakala [2007 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITAT No. 186 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2013 - IRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ARUN KUMAR DAS , JJ. For the Appellant : P. Dudhuria. For the Respondent : Ananda Sen. ORDER:- The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 9th September, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Revenue has come up challenging the said judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows : The respondent-assessee claims to be a commission agent dealing in fishes. She also has an ice factory. During the assessment of her income tax, for the assessment year 2006-07, a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursuant to such notice, the assessee appeared and the matter was taken up for hearing. The questions for consideration are : (a) Whether the decision to delete addition of a sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- is perverse ? (b) Whether the decision to delete addition of a sum of Rs. 42,78,717/- is perverse ? Both the questions have common factual background in the sense that the assessee sought to explain that the sum of Rs. 42,78,717/- appearing to be receivable by her is really receivable by her for and on account of suppliers of fish also known as trawler owners and the sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- appearing to have been advanced by the assessee was really advanced by the Paikers, namely, the buyers of the fish. Both the explanations were held unsatisfactory by the Assessing Officer. Mr. Sen, learned advocate appearing for the assessee-respondent, submitted that the assessee had furnished a list disclosing the names of the buyers to whom the sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- was payable and a list as regards the sellers of fish on whose behalf the assessee was to recover the sum of Rs. 42,78,717/-. He added that once a list was made over to the Assessing Officer, it was not open to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added to her income. The assessee contented herself by furnishing a list indicating names of sellers and buyers who, according to her, had made the investment. She did not, however, produce any supporting material in favour thereof. The learned Advocate for the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer should have called upon those persons to verify the statement of the assessee. We are unable to accept this submission. It is for the assessee even according to the judgment noticed above to produce all relevant materials in support of the claims and contentions put forward by it. Until prima facie evidence in support of the claim or contention is adduced, the onus does not shift to the Assessing Officer to disprove the same. The assessee, by merely furnishing a list, did not discharge her burden. Acceding to the contention of the learned counsel would amount to laying down a rule that it is for the Revenue to find out whether the assessee has or may have an explanation to offer. When an explanation is called for from the assessee, he or she must take care to substantiate her explanation by such supporting evidence as may be in his or her power to produce. Who are the buyers; how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mohanakala.) Mr. Sen, learned Advocate also drew our attention to the following views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case at Page-298. "Once the materials are there, it is incumbent on the assessing authority to enquire into the same. It cannot overlook one or the other materials nor can it undertake a half-hearted enquiry. When looking at the facts, the court has every right to scrutinize the situation and find out as to whether enquiry was made reasonably with the prudence of a reasonable man. If after such enquiry having regard to the materials, the officer had come to a conclusion then it would be a finding of fact, unless it is shown that the inference drawn on the basis of the proved fact was perverse. But if some of the materials are not considered or it is stopped there and does not undertake a reasonable enquiry, then the conclusion arrived at, cannot be said to be a legal inference on the basis whereof such conclusion could be arrived at. Then it does not remain a question of fact but becomes a question of law." The views expressed by the Division Bench cannot be read in isolation. The view expressed has to be read in the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
