9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only way out is to fall back upon the figures indicated by the revenue, the undisclosed income, as the income irrespective of the investment which is needed to yield that income or the absence of explanation of the source – assessee shall be under obligation to pay the tax on the undisclosed income of ₹ 50,00,000/- in the place of ₹ 32,00,000 – Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - I.T.T.A No. 58 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2014 - L. Narasimha Reddy And Challa Kodanda Ram,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri S. R. Ashok For the Respondent : Sri S. Ravi JUDGMENT (Per Honble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The respondent is a company undertaking various business activities. It has been filing returns year a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the respondent, to ₹ 32,00,000/-. The said order is challenged in this appeal filed under Section 260(A) of the Act. 4) Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the assessing authority dealt with each and every item that was added in the assessment in detail, by referring to the relevant provisions of law, but the Tribunal has ignored all of them and reduced the figures, indiscriminately. He contends that even if the total turnover corresponding to the undisclosed income, arrived at by the Tribunal viz., ₹ 6,23,69,417/- is to be taken as correct, the tax liability would be phenomenal, if one applies the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. He contends that hardly any valid reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o certain books in respect of some items and as regards others, it was more a case of inference. Ultimately, he arrived at the conclusion that the net addition in the context of levy of tax would be ₹ 1,33,69,570/- and imposed tax accordingly. 8) In the appeal before the Tribunal, several contentions were urged by the respondent. They ranged from the lack of any material for the conclusions arrived at by the assessing authority, to the doubt on the correctness of the method of computation. The issue was so complicated that during the course of hearing the departmental representative himself suggested that the income of the respondent can be taken at ₹ 50,00,000/-. Since it has emerged from the department itself, it can be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 60,00,000/-. If he fails to do so, Section 69 of the Act mandates that the entire amount of ₹ 60,00,000/- shall be treated as income, itself. In other words, the amount which is otherwise investment, gets transformed into the income. The consequences are phenomenal, particularly when the block assessment is done. However, they are sequelly attributable to the acts and omissions on the part of the assessee. 11) Notwithstanding the limitations in the context of hearing an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, we left it open to the learned counsel for the respondent to explain the source of investment in respect of the undisclosed figures. Since that is not forthcoming, the only way out is to fall back upon the figures indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
