The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Nilima G. Satoskar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusNILIMA G. SATOSKAR ... Appellant... Respondent Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the Appellant. ORAL ORDER Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Orders passed by the authorities below whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugnedOrder dated 28.06.2013, dismissed the Appeal preferred by theAppellants. 3. Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, hasassailed the impugned Orders on the ground that though there wassufficient material on record to suggest that an additional undisclosedamount was paid to the Assessee in connection with the concernedtransaction, the Appellate Authority has erroneously come to theconclusion that there was no material to establish such contention. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellant had found anemail message from Harish Jain which, according to her, clearlydiscloses that some additional amounts were paid in connection withthe said transaction. Learned Counsel has also taken us through theOrders passed by the CIT (Appeal) as well as by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal and pointed out that both the authorities haveerroneously come to the conclusion that the amounts added by theAO were not tenable. Learned Counsel has also taken us through theOrder passed by the AO and pointed out that he had rightlyappreciated the material before him to come to the conclusion that theadditional amounts were to be added for computing the income of theAssessee. Learned Counsel as such pointed out that the followingsubstantial question of law arises in the present Appeal : (A) Whether the Tribunal was correct in facts and in law in deleting the addition of undisclosed income of Rs.1,06,60,960/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of sale consideration received by the assessee towards Taleigao Property? 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. Wehave also gone through the records. It is not in dispute that withregard to another Assessee against whom similar contentions wereraised by the Revenue/Appellants in respect of the same saletransaction on the basis of the same email message relied in the present Appeal, this Court by an Order dated 18.10.2013, in TaxAppeal No. 25/2013, came to the conclusion that the finding of factarrived at by the authorities below could not be re-appreciated by thisCourt in the Tax Appeal. This Court also made an observation atPara 3, thus : "The law on the subject is well settled. The Revenue where itseeks to make an addition as representing undisclosed income of theAssessee, may do so on the basis of reliable material. An additioncannot be made on surmises or on the basis of hypotheticalassumption." 5. In the present case, the learned Counsel appearing for theAppellant was not able to show that besides the email message, thereis any other independent evidence produced by the AO tosubstantiate the said contention. Considering the ratio laid down bythis Court in a similar matter in respect of the same transaction whilstpassing the Order dated 18.10.2013, we find that the substantialquestion of law proposed by the Appellant, does not arise at all. 6. Hence, the Appeal stands rejected. Z. A. HAQ, J. F. M. REIS, J.