Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 882 - HC - Income TaxValidity of the search u/s 132 - Block assessment u/s 158BD - addition on gold ornaments - Held that:- The assessing officer has not considered the case in its entirety, i.e. The gifts received other than the details given by the assessee because the assessee was asked to give the details of persons those who have gifted five or more sovereigns of gold, a reasonable estimation of 1500 grams of gold cannot be ruled out. Therefore, we allow the claim of the assessee to this extent. The difference is to be treated as assessee's undisclosed income. Undisclosed source of income - Held that:- The conclusions of the Tribunal sustaining the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee could not explain the source of ₹ 3,00,000/- is entirely based on the factual materials which were available before him. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in treating ₹ 3,00,000/- as the undisclosed income of the assessee. Addition on purchase of Maruti Zen Car - Held that:- Additions were made by the assessing officer only after applying his mind. The mere fact that it has been reproduced verbatim of the previous assessment order does not mean that the assessing officer had not applied his mind. It is the duty of the assessee to explain the source of the money that came into his account. The only explanation of assessee's daughter that the demand drafts were purchased in the name of her father because it was easy to get the car on priority basis if it was booked in her father's name, of course, is an explanation to be accepted provided the source of the money was properly explained with such precision. It has not been done so. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this addition made by the assessing officer is to be confirmed. Protective assessment - Double addition - as contended by the assessee that many of the items of income which were assessed in the hands of the assessee were already assessed in the hands of his wife - Held that:- It is well settled that where there is a doubt as to the assessment of a person amongst two, parallel proceedings can be taken against both and alternative assessment may also be completed. Therefore, the fact that a protective assessment has been completed against the assessee’s wife does not ipso facto mean that assessment of such items of assets at the hands of the assessee is unsustainable. On the other hand, if the assessment at the hands of the assessee is sustained, the assessment of the very same assets at the hands of the assessee’s wife, would have to necessarily fail. In such circumstances, we reject the contention now raised before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee. Addition from profit from land deal at Palakkad by Sree Sankaracharya University and certain items of properties purchased by the Sree Sankaracharya University at Attukal in Thiruvananthapuram district - Held that:- These two additions were deleted by the Tribunal on the basis that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer were purely based on surmises and without any evidence. While the bonafides of the aforesaid transactions entered into by the assessee, during his tenure of the Vice Chancellor of the University are open to doubt, there is no evidence whatsoever to conclude for the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal or this court to arrive at a conclusion that the differential amounts mentioned above have actually reached the hands of the assessee to be treated as his undisclosed income to be taxed at his hands. In this case, although there are communications which are sufficient to suspect the bonafides of the deals that cannot take the place of all principles to saddle the assessee with the tax liability which requires proof of undisclosed income at the hands of the assessee. Thus the finding of the Tribunal deleting the additions made in respect of Palakkad and Attukal properties are well found both factually and legally.
|