The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Alpha Impex Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S. ALPHA IMPEX PVT. LTD. ... Appellant ... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the appellant. -Coram:DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD &F. M. REIS, JJ.-Date:18th October, 2013 P.C.:- This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, arises from a decision of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench dated 12 April 2013 for theAssessment Year 2007-08. The Revenue has raised the followingquestions of law : 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.6,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards the additional sale consideration received in respect of property at Taleigao ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal is not perverse in deleting the addition of Rs.6,60,00,000/-without appreciating the evidences found during the search and the facts enumerated in the Assessment Order ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.6,60,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer based on seized material and without appreciating the provisions of section 292C of the Act which states that any books of account and other documents found in the possession or control of any person during the course of search under Section 132, it is presumed that the contents of such documents are true ? 2. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.6,60,00,000/- during the course of the assessment proceedings, onthe basis that this represented the additional sale considerationreceived against the sale of land at Taleigao. In appeal, theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, holdingthat the addition was made principally on the basis of an e-mailrecovered during the course of search action at the premises of oneHarish Jain. The CIT(A) came to the conclusion that during thecourse of the assessment proceedings, the details of the transactionrelating to the property at Taleigao, had been furnished by theAssessee. No independent inquiry was made, nor was anycorroborative evidence available for bringing the amount to tax asundisclosed income of the Assessee. 3. The law on the subject is well settled. The Revenue whereit seeks to make an addition as representing undisclosed income ofthe Assessee, may do so on the basis of reliable material. Anaddition cannot be made on surmises or on the basis of hypotheticalassumption. 4. In the present case, the finding of fact by the first appellateAuthority was that there was no supporting evidence available otherthan the seized e-mail to arrive at a conclusion that the amount ofRs.6,60,00,000/- was an additional undisclosed income. TheTribunal, in appeal, has accepted the view of the CIT(A), whileholding that the additions have been correctly deleted. We do notfind that the findings of facts which have been arrived at by the firstappellate Authority and which have been confirmed by the Tribunal,suffer from any perversity to warrant interference in appeal underSection 260-A. For all these reasons, no substantial question of lawwould arise. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. F. M. REIS, J.