Itxa/320/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City-Xvi, Bombay v. Ratan P.lath

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.320 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Ratan B. Lath ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. :- 1.The following questions of law have been framed in the appeal by the revenue under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act :- a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in admitting new facts and evidence which were not placed before the AO or the CIT (A) and deleting the addition made by the AO without giving them any opportunity to rebut the new facts and evidence ?the Tribunal was justified in admitting new facts and evidence which were not placed before the AO or the CIT (A) and deleting the addition made by the AO without giving them any opportunity to rebut the new facts and evidence ? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that the family members had filed revised returns of income after the search was conducted with the intention to give the transaction a colour of genuineness ?Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that the family members had filed revised returns of income after the search was conducted with the intention to give the transaction a colour of genuineness ? 2.The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1989-90. 3.On 12[th] December, 1989 a search was conducted of the premises of the assessee, during the course of which a chit containing certain notings, indicating the amounts of profit earned by the assessee and members belonging to his family in respect of certain dealings in shares during the period from 1st April, 1988 till 31[st] March, 1989 was noted. By a declaration under section 132(4), a total amount of Rs.13.50 lakhs was declared for assessment year 1989-90 in the hands of various members of the family of the assessee. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was declared in the hands of the assessee which is the amount noted in the chit against his name. The Assessing Officer, however, took the view that the entire amount of Rs.13.50 lakhs will have to be assessed in the hands of the assessee and this view was confirmed by the CIT (A). 4.The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the addition was not justified. Under section 132 (4A), noted the Tribunal, there is a presumption that the contents of any document seized during a search represent the true state of affairs and the assessee was entitled, while relying upon the presumption, to claim that only profit of Rs.50,000/- could be assessed in his hands. The Tribunal has observed that the chit contained a detailed description of the amounts shown against each member of the family, representing profits which had accrued from the purchase and sale of shares. The chit mentions the period, purchase price, the date of sale and the sale price. The share of profits against each person is mentioned separately. The Tribunal also noted that the addition in the hands of other members of the family had attained finality. It was for the Assessing Officer to rebut the presumption under section 132(4A) on the basis of cogent material, but no such material was brought on record. In these circumstances, the Tribunal directed deletion of the sum of Rs.13.50 lakhs. directed deletion of the sum of Rs.13.50 lakhs. 5.The approach of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal has considered the document, seized during the course of search. Evidently, the document contained a detailed description pertaining to the transactions in shares and the profits realised as against each member of the assessee’s family, was noted therein. The addition made in the hands of the other members of the family of the assessee had attained finality. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that in so far as the assessee is concerned, an addition was liable to be made only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and not of the entire amount of Rs.13.50 lakhs. The amount of Rs.50,000/- relates to the assessee’s share in the profits realised in the transactions in shares. In these circumstances, the appeal does not deserve admission. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)