The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolhapur v. Mrs. Sudha P. Kulkarni

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 90 OF 1993 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur ...Applicant Versus Mrs. Sudha P. Kulkarni...Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b Mr. N.N. Singh, for the Applicant.Mr. S.N. Inamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir C. Naniwadkar, for the Respondent. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. March 16, 2012. P.C. :- 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has framed following eight questions for decision of this Court :- (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that it will be incorrect proposition to say that the appellant was separately and independently required to disclose the facts in the returns of income also ? (2)Having accepted the department's contention that the disclosure in the returns of wealth is immaterial and not sufficient to hold as disclosure for the purpose of income tax assessments, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer should have made efforts to look into the disclosure made in the wealth tax returns ? (3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the failure to disclose material facts in the return cannot be attributed to the assessee as it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to take efforts and find out what was disclosed in the wealth tax return ? (4)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that if the action for reopening the assessment was partly proper and partly improper even in that event it would be incorrect to say that the action was proper ?law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that if the action for reopening the assessment was partly proper and partly improper even in that event it would be incorrect to say that the action was proper ? (5)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that having ignored the wealth tax records it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not appraised of the facts necessary to finalise the income tax assessment ? (6)Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no benefit arises out of the debit balances can be brought to tax ignoring the law as laid down by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court on this issue ?the law as laid down by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court on this issue ? (7)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of C.I.T. v. Rahimatullah (1986) 160 I.T.R. 784 when the facts are identical and it was found by the Tribunal as a fact that the assessee had not filed Balance Sheet of the company from which she had made withdrawal and in which she had made withdrawal and in which she was a substantial shareholder ?law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of C.I.T. v. Rahimatullah (1986) 160 I.T.R. 784 when the facts are identical and it was found by the Tribunal as a fact that the assessee had not filed Balance Sheet of the company from which she had made withdrawal and in which she had made withdrawal and in which she was a substantial shareholder ? (8)Having dismissed the appeal in the case of Shri P.D. Kulkarni (8)Having dismissed the appeal in the case of Shri P.D. Kulkarni (husband of the assessee) in I.T.A. No. 1265/PN/1986 dated 9.2.1987 for the assessment year 1982-83 on this point, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing assessee's appeal on the very same point contradicting its own decision ?9.2.1987 for the assessment year 1982-83 on this point, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing assessee's appeal on the very same point contradicting its own decision ? 2.The reference arises out of a consolidated Order of the Tribunal dated 2 March, 1992, for Assessment Year 1977-1978 and Assessment Year 1984-1985. 3.The record before the Court would indicate that the combined tax effect for the two years in question is less than Rs. 10,000/-. The order of the C.I.T Appeals would indicate that the ground of appeal taken by the assessee was that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition on account of the value of the perquisites under Section 2(24)(iv) of Rs. 5,000/- for Assessment Year 1977-1978 and Rs. 18,455/- for Assessment Year 1984-85. There was a debit balance of the assessee in a Private Limited Company on which interest was not charged to the assessee. The C.I.T. Appeals indicated that the Tribunal by its order dated 12[th] August, 1989 held that not charging of interest on the debit balance in the accounts of the Directors did not amount to providing of perquisites to the Directors. The Tribunal has confirmed this finding. Of the questions of law framed by the Tribunal, Question nos. 1 to 5 will not arise from the Order of the Tribunal. As regards, Question no. 6 to 8, the Tribunal having followed its own earlier decision in the case of the same company, it is not been pointed to the Court that the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was interfered with by any higher forum. Hence, no fault can be found with the Order of the Tribunal. Question nos. 6, 7 and 8 shall accordingly stand answered in this terms. 4.The Reference is accordingly disposed of. There will no order as to costs. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) (A.V. POTDAR, J.)