High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. Chan Basha
Section 69
Asst. Year 1999-2000
P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ.
Tax Case (Appeal) No. 636 of 2007
14th June, 2007
Counsel Appeared :
T. Ravi Kumar, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. :
This appeal is filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench ‘D’, Chennai in ITA No. 2880/Mad/2004, dt. 24th March, 2006 raising the following substantial question of law :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there is no contribution made by the assessee during the assessment year for the construction, even though the investments are not contained in any books of account and they are unexplained or the explanation is unsatisfactory, the value of the investment is to be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year preceding the assessment year under s. 69 of the IT Act, 1961 ?”
The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under :
The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of footwear. The relevant asst. yr. is 1999-2000 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31st March, 1999. The assessee has not filed return of income and hence notice under s. 142(1) of the IT Act (“Act” in short) was issued, calling upon the assessee to file his return of income for the assessment year. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 24th March, 2003, admitting a total income of Rs. 49,866. Later, notice under s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 10,72,290. While completing the assessment, the AO treated 50 per cent of the difference in the cost of construction, i.e., Rs. 10,22,425 as assessee’s unaccounted income from business and added the same to his total income. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition and set aside the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ in short). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and confirmed the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Departmental Valuer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 42,28,700 as against the estimated cost of construction at Rs. 21,83,855. Before the Departmental Valuer the assessee had filed the year-wise investment from which it could be seen that the assessee had contributed towards the capital for Kalyana Mandapam upto 31st March, 1999 at Rs. 11,33,855 and his wife C. Jabeena at Rs. 10,50,000. The investments were not reflected in the books of account and the assessee also did not offer any explanation for the difference in the cost of construction. Hence, the AO is right in making addition of the difference amount in the hands of the assessee under s. 69 of the Act.
Heard the counsel.
The assessee had shown the cost of construction of Kalyana Mandapam at Rs. 21,83,855. The Departmental Valuer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 42,28,700. During the year under appeal, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal found that there was no contribution by the assessee towards construction. Para 5 of the CIT(A)’s order, reads as follows :
“Even on merits, there cannot be a question of addition when there is no contribution from the appellant, the information of which is available on record. Another point to be considered is, that, the valuation report shows the period of construction from April, 1987 to March, 1999 and the contribution of all the partners from the beginning to end has been given. In the year under appeal, the appellant had apparently not contributed any amount towards investment.”
The said finding of the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal and the same has not been controverted. Hence, the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the authorities below. The concurrent findings given by both the authorities below are based on valid materials and evidence. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala & Ors. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 20 : (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), held that whenever there is a concurrent finding by the authorities below, no interference should be called for by the High Court. Under the circumstances, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference.
In view of the foregoing reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court and accordingly, the tax case is dismissed. No costs.
[Citation : 298 ITR 346]
