Madras High Court
M/S.Jaidayal Prannath Kapur vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Viii on 6 August, 2021
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A. No.301 of 2010
M/s.Jaidayal Prannath Kapur
70/86, Godown Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII,
Chennai. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, against the order, dated 02.01.2009, passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench, in I.T.A.No.1816/Mds/2008, for the
Assessment Year 2002-03.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Pushpa
Standing Counsel
Page 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This Tax Case Appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260-A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for brevity), is directed against the order,
dated 02.01.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
"D" Bench, in I.T.A.No.1816/Mds/2008, for the Assessment Year 2002-03.
2.The appeal was admitted on 12.04.2010 to decide the following
substantial questions of law :
“1.Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the
reopening by issue of notice u/s.148 for the purpose of
assessing a 'deemed income' u/s.69 wihout there being reason
to believe the escapement of 'real income'?
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the
addition of Rs.70,13,506/- under Section 69 as unexplained
investment of the amount spent out on the purchase of shares
when the source remains undisputed and forms part of
accounts?”
Page 2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
3.We have elaborately heard Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondent/Revenue.
4.The assessment for the Assessment Year under consideration, AY
2002-03, was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued.
From the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment
Order, dated 19.12.2007, we find that, initially, the assessee did not extend
full cooperation in the reopened assessment proceedings, and ultimately,
notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee
to furnish the details of the source of payment of a sum of Rs.60,63,000/- by
cash to M/s.Aditya Securities Ltd., and another amount of Rs.9,50,000/- by
Demand Draft to the very same company. The assessee, by letter dated
19.11.2007, confirmed the purchase of shares amounting to Rs.2,00,34,125/-
through the said company for the year ended 31.03.2002 and also
Rs.60,63,000/- paid to the said company by cash on various dates and
another amount of Rs.9,50,000/- paid by Demand Draft. This was a candid
Page 3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
admission made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, which has not
been disputed even before us. When the assessee was questioned as regards
the nature and source of payment, they stated that Rs.98,40,421/- was due
from Sundry Debtors as on 31.03.1999. The assessee was requested to
furnish the name and address of the Sundry Debtors who gave/settled their
amounts by cash with date and the hearing of the case was postponed.
However, the assessee was unable to provide any details and filed an
affidavit, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer as baseless. Since the
assessee has failed to furnish the nature and source for Rs.70,13,506/- paid to
M/s.Aditya Securities Ltd., and failed to furnish the name and address of the
Sundry Debtors, who they claim to have paid/settled their amounts to the
assessee, the Assessing Officer rightly drew adverse inference against the
assessee in the absence of any documentary evidence and completed the
assessment by order dated 19.12.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee
preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX,
Chennai (“CIT(A)” for brevity).
Page 4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
5.The CIT(A) once again re-appreciated the factual position and
agreed with the Assessing Officer, as the assessee had not furnished any
evidence regarding the claim made by them. The CIT(A) also noted that the
assessee failed to furnish the name and address of the Sundry Debtors, so
that the Assessing Officer could verify. He also found from the Assessment
Order that the approach of the Assessing Officer was reasonable and despite
granting sufficient time, the assessee was unable to satisfy the Department by
producing necessary documents. Resultantly, the appeal filed was dismissed
by the CIT(A) by order dated 03.07.2008. Aggrieved by such order, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
6.The Tribunal, in our considered view, had considered the factual
matrix and taken note of all the grounds urged by the assessee and concurred
with the factual findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as the
CIT(A) that the assessee could not furnish any details regarding the
payments received from the Sundry Debtors and that even their names could
not be furnished, and that apart, the Tribunal has recorded that the assessee
Page 5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
had admitted that income details are available with the assessee and in the
absence of any details, the Tribunal rightly held that it is impossible to
believe the theory that the assessee had received the payments from its old
Sundry Debtors after a gap of two to three years, and accordingly, the appeal
was dismissed.
7.Thus, we find that the entire factual matrix has been analyzed by the
two authorities and the Tribunal, and on account of the inability of the
assessee to furnish the details called for, no relief was granted to the
assessee. The position has not improved in any manner before us and the
assessee is in the same state of affairs. Therefore, we find there is no
question of law much less substantial question of law for consideration in
this appeal. Therefore, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
06.08.2021
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
Page 6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai, “D” Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII,
Chennai.
Page 7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.301 of 2010
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mkn
T.C.A. No.301 of 2010
06.08.2021
Page 8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
