SARDAR MOHINER SINGH V. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MA/667/2008

AI Insights

The case involves Sardar Mohinder Singh, the appellant, who contested an addition of Rs. 1,50,000 to his income for the assessment year 1993-94. This addition was based on a document (a pay slip) found during a search at Patna Tyre House Ltd., a firm where the appellant was a director, rather than at his personal residence. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had upheld the addition, leading to this appeal. The main legal contention was whether the document, found at the firm's premises, could be used to assess the appellant's personal income. The High Court dismissed the appeal, supporting the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685750 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: HARSHWARDHAN PRASAD; ARCHANA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: D V PATHY; UTTAM KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Search and seizure; Document relevance
• Section: 158BC

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.667 of 2008 ====================================================== Sardar Mohinder Singh son of Late S. Labh Singh, resident of Dumri Kothi, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Patna Branch, Patna 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Patna. 3. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy, Adv. Mr. Uttam Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Archana Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 10 21-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Tribunal under appeal dated 22.06.2007 passed in MA 116/Pat/2006. The grievance of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the document on the basis of which an addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made in respect of the appellant for the assessment year 1993-94 was not found in the house of the appellant which was subjected to search rather it was found in the premises of the Firm, Patna Tyre House Ltd. and therefore, it could not have been used for making addition in the income of the appellant. Admittedly, the department conducted search and seizure in the house of the appellant as well as business premises Patna High Court MA No.667 of 2008 (10) dt.21-09-2012 2 / 3 2 M/S Patna Tyre House Ltd. to which the appellant was related as a Director. There is no dispute that the document could have been used if it was found during search of house of the appellant but the objection is only on the ground that it was found during search at the business premises of M/S Patna Tyre House Ltd. The authorities have used the document, a pay slip showing deposit in a Bank account standing in the name of minor grand children of the appellant by treating that it was found at the premises of the appellant. The word premises of the appellant have clearly been used in the wider sense as residential premises as well as business premises though the business was in the name of a Firm. An assessment made without any material found during search and seizure and an assessment under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act would have been vulnerable to attack noticed above but keeping in view the relationship of the appellant with the business premises and finding the document to be relevant only in respect of the appellant and not the Firm, the authorities were clearly not debarred by any law from using such material found by them during search and seizure. Simultaneous search of several premises is conducted only to cover such a situation where a person may choose to keep relevant papers at different places. In our considered view, no substantial question of Patna High Court MA No.667 of 2008 (10) dt.21-09-2012 3 / 3 3 law arises for determination in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Mahesh/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J) "