9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me on the basis of entries made in the loose sheet is dependent upon the investigation of facts and cross verification by the Assessing Officer - The substantial questions of law is accordingly answered against the Assessee – Decided against Assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2014 - R. Banumathi, C.J. And Aparesh Kumar Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate ORDER Aparesh Kumar Singh, J: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned ITAT, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in I.T. (SS) No. 63/Pat/2001 dated 23rd January 2002, whereunder the learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 31stst May 2001 in W.T./W.T./E.D./IT/Appeal No. 378/Ran/S S/99-2000 and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle to re-examine the issue afresh. 3.The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the appellant submitted his returns for the block period 1stst April 1987 to 27thth October 1997 on no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no material on record to suggest that for the other periods, the appellant was actually in receipt of salary income of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) therefore directed the AO to take the salary of the appellant of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the assessment year 1997-98 and deleted the addition for the subsequent period. The appellant accordingly got the relief of Rs. 1,59,500/-. On the next ground of appellant's challenge to the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head 'unexplained payment' on account of purchase of property of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that proper inquiries have not been conducted in this regard by the AO on the basis of paper said to have been seized by the AO and relied as statement of one P.P. Sharma. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in order to come to a finding in relation to such addition, the Assessing Officer should have confronted P.P. Sharma as the seized document was found from his possession and not from the possession of the appellant himself. The Commissioner (Appeals) remitted the issue to the file of the AO to re-examine the issue afresh in the light of the direction given. In the result, the appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder challenge in this appeal has been assailed on behalf of the appellant that assessment order of adding undisclosed income on the basis of loose sheet of papers seized during the course of search and seizure operation in the premises of the appellant, has no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT have not considered the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act in proper perspective and seizure of such loose sheets of papers not regularly kept in the course of business, are not sufficient to charge any person with liability. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla and others reported in (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410. Learned counsel has further relied upon a judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City vs. Lata Mangeshkar reported in [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the loose sheets of paper and diary which are unnumbered, have no evidentiary value if they are not corroborated by any oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and 132(4A), no substantial questions of law arises for determination in the instant case. 8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The appellant has assailed the orders passed by the learned ITAT inter-alia on the ground that in view of section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, seizure of loose sheets from the premises of the petitioner are not sufficient to charge the Assessee with any liability as they have no evidentiary value. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under: 34. [Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form] when relevant._ [Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form] regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. 9.The Assessee has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra). However, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is in relation to a CBI case where CBI investigation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth have found that the Assessing Officer has not cross verified the payment made by one P.P. Sharma from the Society before adding undisclosed income in the hands of the Assessee. The learned Tribunal therefore has affirmed the direction of the CIT (Appeals) in remanding the matter to the AO to examine the issue afresh in the light of the direction and observations made by him under section 250 of the Act. Reference may be drawn to the provisions of section 158B(b) contained in Chapter XIVB which provides for special procedure for assessment of search cases. Section 158B(b) reads as under: 158B(b). undisclosed income includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions, where such money, bullion, jewellery, valuable article, thing, entry in the books of account of other document or transaction represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act [or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false]. 11.Provisions of Section 132(4A) of Income Tax Act ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer before making such an addition and therefore, the matter has been remitted to the Assessing Officer for proper examination and cross verification. The aforesaid addition is therefore subject to ascertainment of facts on proper verification by the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner based upon interpretation of section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, is misconceived and fit to be rejected. Even in the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Supra) rendered by the Bombay High Court, the learned Division Bench also was of the view that the question raised by the Income Tax Department was purely on appreciation of evidence and it held that the learned ITAT after appreciation of the pieces of evidence relied upon by the Department to justify the addition made in the income of the Assessee based upon certain entries in the ledger of the Firm, seized by the Income Tax Authorities from the premises of that Firm, could not support the conclusion that even in a single instance, the Assessee could be said to have received money in black as remuneration. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
