Ita/100005/2014 Of Jaywant Narsing Patil v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR 1.T.A Nos. 100005#100008/2014 BETWEEN JAYWANT NARSING PATIL,AGE: 597 YEARS, OCC NOW NILR/O. LAXMI GALLI, MUTAGA,SAMBRA ROAD, BELGAUM.APPRLLANT (BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADVOCATE) ANDTHE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD NO. 1 (1), KHIMJIBAI COMPLEX,OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL,BELGAUM... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED U/SEC.260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST ORDER PASSED IN ITA.NO.106, 107, 108AND 109/PNJ/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI, THE APPEAL ISHBREBEBY ALLOWE THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,RAM MOHAN REDDY.J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260 (A) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, for short ‘the Act’, are preferred by theAssessee, being aggrieved by the common order dated30.10.2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PanajiBench, Panaji, in ITA Nos.106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111and 112/PNJ/2013 relating to the assessment years2003-2004,2005-2006,|A2OQOSo-2Jand2008-2009,insofar as it relates to ITA Nos.106, 107, 108 and109/PNJ/2013. ? Facts briefly stated are the lands belonging to oneBhatkande family in particular Smt. Jyotibai KrishnaBhatkande and others when acquired by the BelgaumUrban Development Authority (BUDA), compensation wasmade over to the said family attracting capital gain andinterest, from out of which the said family filed returnsclaiming expenditure made over to the assessee, under anagreementdated09.07.2003|withtheASSESSCE, whereunder it was agreed that 60% of the amount ofcompensation would be paid to the assessee, followingwhich the assessee received|S|1,19,41,725/- on differentdates between 11.01.2003 and 25.08.2007. =The saidamounts were admittedly received by the assessee bycheque through banking channel in the name of theassessee. From out of that amount, the assessee is saidto have paid four other persons during the assessmentyear 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 in a sum ofv2,17,240/-each. It is also asserted, that during the assessment years|2003-2004,2005-2006,|A2OQOSo-2Jand#%%(&#%%'certain payments were made to the said four persons. 3.The tax returns filed by four other persons, werefinalised on 29.10.2010. However, assessee filed return ofincome on 08.05.2013 declaring income of.zy80,900 /though received 60% of the compensation on variousdates. That return of income was aiter receipt of noticeunder Section 147 of the Act. The four other persons| along with the appellant filed common aflfidavit o07.12.2009 stating that each of them did not get morethan 20% of the compensation amount and that theyworked jointly to ensure payment of compensation to theland losers. 4Though assessee advanced a contention that theamount ot|<1,19,41,725/- was distributed amongst fourother persons, having tailed to produce documentaryevidence, nevertheless, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) relied upon the affidavits filed by the parties, and inthe absence of documentary evidence, confirmed the orderof the Assessing Officer, accepting 29% as expenditureand the return of income as an Association ot Persons(AOP). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the orderimpugned reversed the finding of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A) in ITA Nos.106 to 112/PNJ/2013 for therespective assessment years to hold that the income wasthat of the assessee and not of Association oft Person (AOP) and accordingly allowed the Department’s appeal, inpart, while confirming the order of the Assessing Officerallowing 25% as expenditure. (AOP) and accordingly allowed the Department’s appeal, inpart, while confirming the order of the Assessing Officerallowing 25% as expenditure. 5.Although learned counsel for the appellant submitsthat there is enough and more material to establishexpenditure incurred by the assessee which deduction theAOP is entitled to claim in the return filed, we are notimpressed by that submission. The Income Tax AppellateTribunal, on fact, recorded a finding that there is nomaterial whatsoever to establish expenditure incurred bythe Assessee as an AOP, hence we find no legal infirmityin the order impugned calling for interference. 6.We may also notice that the Assessing Officer allowed29% of the income as expenditure in all the assessmentorders for the assessment years 2003-2004, 2005-2006,2006-2007 and 2008-2009 which was confirmed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, no ,0=,5-156-/�E0+,5671�78�/-D�-36,+�873�2+46,671�9-C61?� �..+-/,�2+@762�78�9+365�-3+�26,96,,+2� ��%#������� ��%#���������� A9�&