Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

C.I.T. Central Ii vs Lalit Kumar Jain on 1 February, 2011

Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya

Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya

                        ITA No. 243 of 2005
                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax)
                           ORIGINAL SIDE


                         C.I.T. CENTRAL II

                               Versus

                        LALIT KUMAR JAIN


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI
Date : 1st February, 2011.


                                                            Appearance:

                                                   Mr. R. K. Tiwari, Adv.


       The Court : This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue and is

directed against an order dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Kolkata in I.T. (SS) A. No.

135(Kol)/2003 relating to the block assessment period 1989-'90, 1999-

'00, 2000-'01 (upto 31st August, 1999.

       The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has

sought to raise the following four questions before us:
                                      2


           i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the
learned      Income   Tax   Appellate    Tribunal   has   erred   in    deleting
unexplained source of investment
   (a) In a flat purchased at Indore in the name of the wife of the
          respondent/assessee - amounting to Rs.2,36,000/-.

(b) The fund available with the wife of the respondent/assessee -

amounting to Rs.51,000/-, in respect of Assessment Year 1994- '95.

ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the undisclosed income on account of non-filing of income tax returns, within the meaning of Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

iii) Whether the learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting of Rs.77,950/- and Rs.1,12,540/- for the assessment year 1991- 92 and 1994-95 inspite of the respondent/assessee having not file it return on time and prior to search operation.

iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the undisclosed income of Rs.3,92,090/- and Rs.2,73,720/- from salary and non-filing of any valid return in respect of Assessment Years 1996-'97 and 1999-'00."

So far as the first question is concerned, it appears that a flat was purchased at Indore in the name of the wife of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,36,000/-.

3

The learned Tribunal below has dealt with the said question by holding that the said amount cannot be allowed in the hands of the assessee as his "undisclosed income" under Chapter XIV-B as no incriminating document was found during the search which indicated that the assessee, and not his wife, was the owner of the flat and has invested the same in acquiring the flat. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that since the flat at Indore was registered in the name of Smt. Chandra Jain, the wife of the assessee and was acquired out of the funds as explained by the assessee by documentary evidence the funds invested in the flat should not be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. We find that the view taken by the Tribunal was the correct approach and, thus, find no substance in the first question raised by Mr. Chowdhury.

As regards the second question raised by Mr. Chowdhury, we agree with the learned Tribunal below that the appropriate action by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act should have been taken in the case of Smt. Chandra Jain, if legally permissible, and tax in her hands as unexplained investment and thus, the said point is also without any substance.

Similarly, as regards the third point indicated above we are of the view that in case where salary income was covered by TDS, the 4 return for such TDS filed by the employer will be disclosure for the purpose of income tax and, therefore, it could not be treated as undisclosed and thus, there was no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.

The fourth question is also of the similar nature and on the aforesaid ground the same is not tenable.

We find that this appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as there is no substantial question of law involved.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(BHATTACHARYA, J.) (DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) kc.

A.R(C.R)