TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 15,81,000 to ₹ 3,12,932 on renovation of Hotel Hawamahal without there being material on record and whether the finding in respect of above additions is perverse ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in allowing the set off of ₹ 16 lakhs as lease payment which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in holding that ₹ 16 lakhs had flown back from unexplained lease payments and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in deleting the additions made of ₹ 1,73,600 for investment in Kullu land and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse ? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75,789 was allowed to be deducted which was accepted by the Department. However, the Tribunal has committed serious error in reducing ₹ 3,12,932 though at the time of search, no search entry was found in the books of accounts and the same was not reflected. It was only admitted by one representative Umesh Mehta during search. 5. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Singhi has relied upon the following decisions : 5.1 In Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri v. Union of India reported in [1993] 204 ITR 368 (SC) holding as under (page 376) : We do not find ourselves in agreement with Mr. Divan's submission that sub-section (2) of section 3 should be construed as if it were a proviso to sub-section (1) and to treat it as merely carving out of the ambit of sub-section (1). The authorities dealing with the manner of interpreting a proviso need not, therefore, be dealt with. Nor do we agree with Mr. Divan when he says that reading the words of sub- section (2) literally will produce an absurd result. The words of sub- section (2) are clear and unambiguous ; the words must, therefore, be interpreted as they read. So read, they harmonise with the provisions of section 14. To those asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax department, in our opinion, will not be voluntary within the meaning of section 273A. The action of the petitioners in filing the returns after the books of account had been seized at a raid was impelled by the compelling circumstance that the petitioner was likely to be dealt with under the penal provisions of the Income-tax Act. The action of the petitioner in filing the returns under such a constraint cannot be said to be voluntary. In Mool Chand Mahesh Chand v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 1 (All), the Income-tax Officer started investigation by asking for details in respect of several matters while conducting the assessment proceedings for the year 1969-70. Thereafter, the assessee filed returns for the years 1964-65 to 1970-71. It was held that since the investigation had started and concealed income had come to light, it was a case covered by the word 'detection' occurring in section 273A. It was further observed that in these circumstances the returns were filed after the assessee felt that the game was up because the investigation initiated by the Income-tax Officer exposed him to a situation that he had assessable income in respect of other years ; it ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal deleted in para Nos. 28 to 29. 9. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Khurana contended that it is block assessment under section 69. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act reads as under : 69. Unexplained investments.-Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. 10. He has taken us to para 8 of the Tribunal which reads as under : By keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shamlal Balram Gurbani [2001] 249 ITR 501 (Bom), we are of the view that such income cannot be considered at undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise entry in the books of accounts is not very important factor for making the addition under section 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concurrent finding as the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not challenged by the Department. In view of the same the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties. 14. Issue No. 1 regarding deletion, addition which was made for renovation of Hotel Hawa Mahal, in view of the provisions of section 69 after renovation, it was made ₹ 15,81,000. No doubt it has come on record as argued by Mr. Singhi that it is make to believe but that is block assessment. In our opinion, in view of the provisions of section 69, no error has been committed by the Tribunal. Therefore, issue No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 15. Regarding issue Nos. 2,3, 4 and 5 it is true that original payment was made and subsequently for the cash in hand, the assessee has explained different years' income which is unexplained and the Tribunal while appreciating the same in para Nos. 27, 28 and 29 held as stated above. 16. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 17. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
