The Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, V. M/s. Dynalog Softech Pvt. Limited

ITTA/132/2012

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the assessment of undisclosed income for the block period from 1996-97 to 2002-03. Initially, M/s. Dynalog Softech Pvt. Ltd. admitted some undisclosed income in a return filed pursuant to a block assessment notice. Subsequently, an affidavit was submitted by the assessee declaring the undisclosed income to be nil, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) later granted partial relief to the assessee, quantifying the undisclosed income at Rs.28,52,307/-. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad, which was dismissed by the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719098 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: 319 ITR 359, 315 ITR 313
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Block assessment; Burden of Proof; Expenditure claim; Revised return; Undisclosed income
• Section: 14B

Judgement Text

"HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.No.132 of 2012 Date: 02-08-2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Dynalog Softech Pvt. Ltd., … Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.No.132 of 2012 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dated 29-05-2009 in I.T.A.No.97/Hyd/09 for the block period from 1996-97 to 2002-03, and is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) with regard to granting of relief on the returned income (undisclosed) and bringing the same to NIL? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in admitting the revised return under Chapter XIVB, through there is no such provision in the Act. iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, can assessee be said to have retracted successfully the disclosure made and the income disclosed in the original return? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, can the assessee be said to have discharged the onus as well as burden of proof so as to claim its expenditure. v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee failed to produce vouchers, bills in support of its claim whether the Tribunal is justified in granting relief to the extent of 90% of the expenditure? vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal followed the decisions of the High Courts laid down in 319 ITR 359, 315 ITR 313 and passed orders giving facts and reasons? 2. Learned Tribunal has dealt with five appeals. Out of the same, four appeals were filed by the department and one appeal was filed by the assessee. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the department and against this order of dismissal, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Originally a return in the prescribed format was furnished pursuant to the notice issued for block assessment and the assessee has admitted some undisclosed income in the said return. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed stating that the undisclosed income was nil instead of the figure disclosed earlier. However, the Assessing Officer, after hearing the assessee, did not accept his version and came to the conclusion of undisclosed income in his own way. Therefore, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted part relief quantifying a sum of Rs.28,52,307/- being undisclosed income. He found on fact that the Assessing Officer did not consider the material evidence produced before him. This fact finding was accepted by the learned Tribunal. In fact, at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, the Departmental Representative did not press the appeal as we notice from the recording of the learned Tribunal as follows: “Therefore considering all these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Even at the time of hearing before us, the ld. DR was not in a position to assail the order of the ld. CIT (A) in the context of determination of undisclosed income.” 4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are unable to touch the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal as practically it was passed on the consent of the department. 5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The present appeal does not relate to the determination of the assessee’s appeal by the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 02-08-2013 YCR "