T.a./32/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Ce v. M/S Ranchi Medical Research And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No.32 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central), Patna………Appellant Versus'M/s Ranchi Medical Research & Development Foundation(P) Ltd., Ranchi .......… Respondent ---------- CORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak RoshanFor the Respondents: M/s B. Poddar, M. Choudhary, D. Poddar, P.Poddar & Amrita Sinha----------- Order No.06Dated 5th September, 2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the finding recorded by the C.I.T.(Appeals) in its order dated 20.4.2010 and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Circuit Bench, Ranchi in order dated 14.7.2011. As per the brief facts of the case during the course of search on 18.7.2006 some loose sheet of paper was seized from the residence of Dr. K.K. Sinha, the assessee's premises. The requisite notice was issued to the assessee and he was asked to explain the nature of transactions of Rs.52,00,000/- written in the loose papers. The assessee explained that the figures related to the planning made for payment of margin money for the proposed term loan for the company from S.B.I, Commercial Branch, Ranchi. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and, therefore, held that amount of Rs.36,00,000/- be added as assessee's unexplained investment and added it to the total income. Learned C.I.T.,(Appeals) observed that there is explanation of the assessee and the A.O has also examined the books of account which were audited and also examined the seized material. However, the C.I.T(Appeals) did not found anything adverse regarding the income declared by the assessee in his return. The finding recorded by the A.O. has been considered by the C.I.T.,(Appeals) in para 7(iii) and 7(iv). According to C.I.T.,(Appeal), the A.O. has not given any reason for not accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee in respect of the transactions relating to the seized papers wherein the assessee submitted that the notings pertained to arrangement of fund for depositing margin money in the bank for securing loan for the purpose of buying C.T and MRI machines. These machines were purchased by the assessee for its diagnostic centre from M/s Siements Limited. These facts are verifiable from the books of account. The C.I.T, Appeal also observed that though an amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- has been alleged to be paid on the basis of seized paper, further details are not available on record. Apparently, no statement was recorded during search. No statement was recorded during the course of assessment also. There is no material to hold that the assessee company has made investment of this amount in any asset which is not disclosed in the accounts. The finding recorded by the C.I.T, Appeal has been upheld by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that when the document is seized, it is required to be considered as a whole and it cannot be rejected in part only. It is submitted that in this case the assessee could not explain the reason for mentioning the name of one Mithlesh Singh and, therefore, it may be presumed that amount was paid to the said Mithlesh Singh for purchase of immovable property. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that when the document is seized, it is required to be considered as a whole and it cannot be rejected in part only. It is submitted that in this case the assessee could not explain the reason for mentioning the name of one Mithlesh Singh and, therefore, it may be presumed that amount was paid to the said Mithlesh Singh for purchase of immovable property. It appears that because of the mention of the name of one Mithlesh Singh, it was presumed that there must be some contract for the purchase of property from Mithlesh Singh and against that the said amount of Rs.36,00,000/- has been paid by the assessee. The very foundation of this assumption is the name of Mithlesh Singh on the paper seized, but apart from this there is no fact on record nor any inquiry was held by the assessing officer to find out any transaction that in fact there was any transaction with Mithlesh Singh, relating to the immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 52,00,000/-, as has been presumed by the Assessing Officer in its order as well as in the questionnaire given to the assessee. This presumption cannot be held to be proper in any J.K/A. Mohanty manner without there being any further inquiry or material on record. The appeal involves no question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Prakash Tatia, C.J.) (Aparesh Kumar Singh,J.)