TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the amounts as seen from the books of accounts. We are also of the opinion that under the Income tax Act, the proposal is essentially to assess a particular amount, as income, which the assessee has not reckoned as such in its return. To propose under one head of income and in scrutiny or a reassessment to finalise under another head is perfectly permissible. Whether there was any possibility of it being recovered - If the recovery had been barred by limitation, necessarily, it has to be treated as an income from the business and the same had to be assessed under the Income Tax Act as has been held in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.[1996 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]. Even if the deviation from the proposal is found to be improper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Appellant : ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX For The Respondent : SMT. S. PARVATHI AMICUS CURIAE JUDGMENT K . VINOD CHANDRAN, J . There was none appearing for the respondent, despite the Department having taken out paper publication, hence we appointed Advocate S. Parvathy, as Amicus Curiae . 2. The issue arising in the appeal is with respect to the assessment of ₹ 12,49,000/- which according to the Company remained with the company as an advance for rent and never turned into income. The assessee-respondent is engaged in letting out commercial spaces. The assessee is said to have entered into a contract with one another company, for letting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned cash credit, was the specific finding. The First Appellate Authority deleted the income from taxation. The revenue was before the Tribunal which confirmed the order of the lower authorities. 6. Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Department would submit that by the time assessment was made, the remedy of the other company for claiming the aforesaid amounts was barred by limitation. The assessee could not also prefer any explanation, as to why the amounts were not returned and how it remains as a liability of the assessee company. In such circumstances, it was added as an income; which is permissible going by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd .[1996(222) ITR 345 (SC)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit or as an unexplained investment; since it was neither. The source was clear and there was proper explanation for the amounts as seen from the books of accounts. We are also of the opinion that under the Incometax Act, the proposal is essentially to assess a particular amount, as income, which the assessee has not reckoned as such in its return. To propose under one head of income and in scrutiny or a reassessment to finalise under another head is perfectly permissible. 10. The further question is whether there was any possibility of it being recovered. If the recovery had been barred by limitation, necessarily, it has to be treated as an income from the business and the same had to be assessed under the Income Tax Act as has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
