Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2010 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 942 - HC - Income TaxBlock assessment - Unexplained, undisclosed investment - held that:- a finding recorded by the Tribunal assuming it to be on a fact by the Tribunal to the effect that there was a Hindu undivided family and certain investments said to be explained by the assessee in whose returns it was found as unexplained to be the income of the Hindu undivided family and in turn gift given to the assessee is nothing short of a perverse finding or inference not tenable in law nor stipulated on material available. - the finding is clearly an illegal finding in law and we express our surprise and shock that a quasi-judicial authority like the Income-tax Appellate Authority should have exercised in a mechanic/ casual manner, to unsettle the settled legal principles to record and a find- ing of this nature in favour of the assessee when it was never warranted either on facts or in law - Decided in favor of revenue. Issue of period of limitation - held that:- the assessee having actively participated in the proceedings, if not for joining issue at least for seeking further time for filing its returns and if the assessee had not thought it proper to raise the question of limitation before the very assessing autho- rity, it cannot be said that the assessee has got an opportunity to raise the question of limitation for the first time only before the Tribunal and that too only after the assessing authority passed the order. - assessee being quite aware of the fact that as on March 31, 1997, no block assessment order had been passed, and even as contended there was no possibility of passing a block assessment order, the contention that it was not within the knowledge of the assessee as to when the Assessing Officer would pass the block assessment order is not tenable - Decided against the assessee. Cross objection in second appeal - held that:- even if a cross-objection is possible or permitted and assuming on such premise also cross-objection is definitely not permissible under section 260A of the Act based only on the language of sub-section (7) of section 260A and in the absence on any express enabling provision creating a right of cross-objection. It is on an over all examination of all these aspects, we hold that a cross-objection is not permitted in an appeal under section 260A of the Act. Valuation of property - held that:- any unexplained investments, expenditure or an asset found in the hands of the assessee which is attributable to a search can definitely be brought to tax under the provisions of section 158BC of the Act as part of the block assessment and, therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has unnecessarily interfered with the findings of the Assessing Officer in accepting the valuation as indicated by the Depart- mental Valuation Officer. Unexplained investment - held that:- It is not for the Assessing Officer to produce some negative evidence, but for the assessee who puts forth a claim, to make good the claim by producing evidence. If the assessee had claimed some amount had come back to him and that formed a reinvestment, etc., that stand should have been made good by the assessee and not disproved by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against the assessee. Peak Cash credit - bank account - held that:- There can be only one peak and not several peaks, but in the very scheme of the income-tax assessments and the manner of computing undisclosed income, that too by the present method of the unexplained credits in the bank account, we do not find the method adopted by the Assessing Officer to be obnoxious enough to warrant interference by the Tribunal or to upset the same by us on the basis of arguments addressed by Sri Shankar, learned counsel for the assessee. It is for this reason we inevitably answer this question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and by setting aside this finding of the Tribunal and sustaining the finding of the Assessing Officer. Determination of cost of construction - difference between the cost of construction as ascertained by the Departmental Valuation Officer and as declared by the appellant - held that:- the amount cannot constitute an undisclosed source of investment to treat it as an income on the premise of unexplained source for further investment. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|