9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred for the opinion of this court : " (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in limiting the spread over of addition proposed to four years instead of the full period of construction of six years ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in including the cost of furniture and equipment in the cost of building to be spread over ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining a portion of the addition to income from other sources ? " The facts relevant are as follows : The assessee, a registered firm, was running a nursing home at Quilon. On December 19, 1985, a search was conducted in the hospital premises and the residence of the managing director and certain materials were recovered. Within 15 days of the search, the assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for acquisition of equipment worth Rs. 62,046 outside the books. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had estimated the value of the equipment at Rs. 5,00,000, since the admitted investment was Rs. 48,09,948. The Tribunal directed that the amount of Rs. 62,046 should be added to it. The addition must be assessed in the years of investment. Therefore, the Tribunal directed that an amount of Rs. 48,246 + Rs. 4,800 should be considered for the assessment year 1983-84 and Rs. 9,000 for the assessment year 1985-86. Thus, in para 39, the Tribunal directed that the Income-tax Officer must deduct from the addition upheld by the Tribunal Rs. 62,046 representing medical equipment cost and it has to be assessed in the appropriate years of acquis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered is whether the Tribunal had failed to give an opportunity to the assessee as contemplated under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, while sustaining an addition of Rs. 62,046 to the income as from other sources. Admittedly, it was for the first time before the Tribunal it was found out that the assessee had acquired equipment worth Rs. 62,046 outside the books. The Tribunal directed addition of this amount spreading it over two years. The complaint is that before taking such a view no opportunity was given to the assessee to show the source. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as follows : " 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 9,000 for the assessment year 1985-86. This is not a case where addition is left open for consideration of the assessing authority. It is true that the Tribunal is empowered to give such directions, but the fact is that in this case no such direction is given. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue contends that it is open to this court to give a direction to the assessing authority to give an opportunity to the assessee to explain its source regarding the amount of Rs. 62,046. To the above argument it is submitted on behalf of the assessee that there is no quarrel over the power of this court to give such direction, but the exercise of such power being only discretionary, it shall not be used in the facts of this case. More than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
