TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income of Sri K.P.Kedia does not, in the least, diminish the liability of the assessee company under section 68. These are two different causes of action leading to addition against the income of two different persons. There is as such no question of any double taxation. We are sorry to say that the learned Tribunal has mixed up the matters. The addition in this case under Section 68 has nothing to do with any investment claimed or admitted to have been made by K. P. Kedia outside his books of accounts. In case that is found to have been done, that would attract addition under Section 69 against Shri K. P. Kedia. The addition in the case of the assessee is on account of the sum found credited in its books of accounts maintained for the previous year in respect whereof the assessee failed to offer any explanation and the Assessing Officer for justified reasons added the amount of ₹ 1,06,90,000/- to the income of the assessee. We may add that the right to offer explanation under Section 68 is that of the assessee. No third party has any right to offer such explanation. - Decided against assessee - ITA 619 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2016 - ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue to the file of the AO. With a direction to redecide the same after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering the evidences and material that may be furnished by the assessee. The assessee shall under obligation furnish or adduce or produce reliable and cogent evidences or materials in support of the credit of amount by way of share application money. We order accordingly. In pursuance thereto, the assessing officer undertook the exercise once again and disposed of the matter by his order dated 27th February, 2004. The Assessing Officer noticed the following pieces of evidence : (a) There were 40 share applicants. All of them were issued summons under section 131 of the I.T.Act. Except for Mahabir Prasad Surulia and Gobardhan Das Surulia, the rest of the share applicants were not found at the address provided by the assessee. (b) The assessee was informed that the share applicants were not found. The assessee was also requested to produce the share applicants to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee failed to do so. (c) Mahabir Prasad Surulia and Gobardhan Das Surulia, in response to the summons filed writt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 28th January, 2003 which was not required because that would appear from the order remanding the matter. The justification was offered only for the purpose of establishing a nexus between the assessee/company and Sri K.P.Kedia. Submissions were made on behalf of the assessee, as would appear from paragraph-8 of the impugned judgement, that from the block assessment order of Sri K.P.Kedia placed in the Paper Book, it can be seen that the names of both the appellant companies are figuring in the Annexure I list the list of the so-called intermediary companies. He then drew the attention of the Bench to the order of the settlement Commission passed in the case of Sri K.P.Kedia and submitted that the Settlement Commission had rejected the application filed by Sri K.P.Kedia. The issue reached finality inasmuch as the additions were confirmed substantively in the hands of Sri K.P.Kedia. He submitted that the same income cannot be taxed twice once in the hands of Sri K.P.Kedia and again in the hands of the assessee companies. The learned Tribunal held that - The Settlement Commission vide its order dated 16.03.2006 (copy placed in the Paper Book) has rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust because K.P.Kedia is said to have provided the funds ? The answer is no. That would on the contrary lead to a negative answer to all the three questions indicated above. As a result, addition under section 68 of the I.T.Act shall be perfectly justified. If K.P.Kedia has, in fact, provided any fund which is not accounted for in his Books of Accounts then it would attract addition to his income under section 69 of the I.T.Act. The addition to the income of Sri K.P.Kedia does not, in the least, diminish the liability of the assessee company under section 68. These are two different causes of action leading to addition against the income of two different persons. There is as such no question of any double taxation. It may also be pointed out that the learned Tribunal failed to notice that the Settlement Commission in its order dated 16th March, 2006 has recorded that the case of K. P. Kedia was that he filed return on 21st August, 2000 of income reflecting undisclosed income of ₹ 7.10 crores under compulsion. We are sorry to say that the learned Tribunal has mixed up the matters. The addition in this case under Section 68 has nothing to do with any investment claimed or ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
