ASHA SINGH V. THE COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

MA/209/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Asha Singh, the appellant, contesting additions made to her income by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act following a search and seizure operation. The additions pertained to undisclosed income for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99, and a claim of Rs. 1,00,000 for financing the purchase of a Tata Sumo vehicle. The CIT (A) initially remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer, which was contested by both the Assessee and the Department before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) did not have the jurisdiction to remand the case and set aside that part of the order. The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting the lack of new evidence and the inconsistency in the appellant's claims regarding the source of the funds used for the vehicle purchase.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751504 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA MOHAN MISHRA
• Keywords: Agricultural income; HUF; Jurisdiction; Remand; Search and seizure; Undisclosed bank account
• Section: 251; 158BC

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.209 of 2011 ====================================================== Asha Singh .... .... Appellant/s Versus The Comissioner Of Income Tax, .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Archana Sinha @ Archana S ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 5 29-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. A notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act was issued pursuant to search and seizure. The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 74,000/-, 5,000/- and 20,000/- for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. It was further held that the appellant had failed to satisfy with regard to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards financing of undisclosed purchase of a Tata Sumo vehicle. The explanation that it was funded from business and salary income was untenable. The CIT (A) concurred with the appellant that while making the aforesaid additions, the peak credits were required to be ascertained after taking into consideration deposits and withdrawals in the undisclosed bank account, before fixation of liability. The matter was remanded to the Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2011 (5) dt.29-01-2013 2 / 3 2 Assessing Officer for proceeding accordingly. Appeals were preferred before the Tribunal by the Assessee and the Department. The Department contended that under Section 251 of the Act, CIT (A) did not have the jurisdiction to remand. The Tribunal upheld the ground concluding that the jurisdiction of CIT (A) was confined to confirming, reducing, enhancing or annulling the assessment. He did not possess powers of remand. Setting aside that part of the order it was remanded to the CIT (A) for fresh decision in accordance with law. The submission on behalf of the appellant that the powers of the CIT (A) remains unfettered if he is dissatisfied by the order of the Assessing Officer needs no consideration and/or observation by us at this stage. So far as issue of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards finance of Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned, out attention has been invited by the respondent to the incongruous stand taken by the appellant before the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A). Before the former it was explained as income from business, while before the latter it was explained as income from agriculture. The evidence in support of agricultural income from HUF was not taken as a ground and neither was any evidence produced before the Assessing Officer. A new ground with fresh evidence could not have been produced before the Patna High Court MA No.209 of 2011 (5) dt.29-01-2013 3 / 3 3 appellate authority to challenge the order of the Assessing Officer on a ground not urged before it. But we leave that open for consideration in the wisdom of the CIT (A). We therefore find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. P. Kumar/- (Navin Sinha, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J) "