Date Of Judgment 28-06-2018, Ita v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another . 2/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THR HON’BLEK DR.JUSTICE VINBBT KOTHARI ANT) THR HON’BLE MRS..JUSTICK S.SUJATHA I.T.A. No.39/2017 BETWEEN : GOPAL S. PANDITPROP. PANDIT DEVBLOPBRS‘EMPORIUM’, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, —II] FLOOR, OLD PUMP WELL ROAD,KANAKANADY,MANGALORE - 575 OO2. |. APPEHLLANT| (BY SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) AND : 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF _INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDING, MANGALORE - 575 OO1. «|THERE DEPUTLY COMMISSIONOF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE - 575 OO1. |~ RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEE RALGI, ADV.) THIS INCOMB TAX APPBAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION|260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED 27.07.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.1198/BANG/2013, FOR:THEASSESSMENTYEAR-2009-20 10,PRAYING1. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED:ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT MODIFYING TO | Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.39/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 2/5 THR ORDBR OR THR INCOMB TAX APPELLATK TRIBUNAL|DATED 27.07.2016 IN ITA NO.1198/BANG/2013 AND DIRECT)TO THR SECOND RESPONDENT TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERIN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BIC.. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,|Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DGMENT Mr. R.Chandrashekar,Adv. for Appellant - Assessee_Mr. Jeevan R. Neeralgi,Adv. for Respondents —Revenue | In the present Appeal filed by the Assessee againstthe Order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Annexure-A dated.2/.07.2016,the following purported substantial question of law has been suggested by the Assessee., Whether,OF.the factsandinthecircumstancesof theappellant’s CASE,theAppellate Tribunal is right in holding the seizedmaterial corroborates the income fixed under thehead “Pooja” though seized material does notdisclose such income from “Pooja”? Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.39/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 3/5 a2As far as the question raised before us is|concerned, we have already held inI.T.A.No.36/2017in the case of‘Gopal. V. Pandit v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another’2that we are ofthe opinionthat the same does not give rise to any substantialquestion of law as it is a matter of estimate based on therelevant material seized during the course of search andthe statement recorded of the Assessee u/s. 132/4] ofthe Act as to what was the income of the Assessee whowas working as Priest during the relevant period. 3.The relevant findings of the learned Tribunalare quoted below for ready reference. “O77 We have heard the learned AuthorisedRepresentative as well as learned DepartmentalRepresentativeand consideredthe relevantmaterial on record. The first objection by thelearned Authorised Representative is that theoriginal assessment was completed under Section143(3) and that the original assessment wascompleted under Section 143(3) and in _ threassessment under Section 153A, no addition| 4/5 3.The relevant findings of the learned Tribunalare quoted below for ready reference. “O77 We have heard the learned AuthorisedRepresentative as well as learned DepartmentalRepresentativeand consideredthe relevantmaterial on record. The first objection by thelearned Authorised Representative is that theoriginal assessment was completed under Section143(3) and that the original assessment wascompleted under Section 143(3) and in _ threassessment under Section 153A, no addition| 4/5 can be made except based on seized material. Wefind that the Assessing Officer has placed a copyof the seized material at page 10 of theassessment order which clearly shows differententries recorded by the assessee including anentry of Mandir and Pooja of Rs.35 lakhs for theFLY.2005-06. Therefore, the addition made by theAssessing Officer is not based merely onStatement recorded under Section 132(4) of theAct. It is pertinent to note that the assessee in the)Statement had estimated the undisclosed incomeof Rs.75 lakhs for 3 assessment years underconsideration which matches the figures andamounts shown in the seized document relatingto Pooja income of Rs.35 lakhs, Rs.20 lakhs andRs.20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to2008-09 respectively. We find that there is noambiguity in the statement of assessee regardingthe Pooja income which has been _ clearlcorroborated by the seized material. Thus whenthere is a sufficient evidence seized materialwhich corroborates the statement of the assesseerecorded under Section 132(4) on 23.2.2009 thenthe subsequent retraction of the statement by theassessee without any corroborating evidencecannot be accepted as the assessee has notexplained the statement and how the income Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 5/5 Sholwn in the seized material is not correct.Therefore mere retraction of statement withoutexplaining circumstances as well as corroboratingevidence, it cannot be accepted being an afterthought. Accordingly, we do not find anysubstance in this ground of the assessee and the|Same is dismissed.” 4Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no substantial question oflaw arises. The Appeal of the Assessee is lable to bedismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Nocosts. NGC. Sd/-.JUDGE| Sd/-.JUDGE|