THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. SRI HARRI JOSEPH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- solely on the basis of the mother filing a return conceding capital gains. The Court reasoned that the mother, as the owner and seller, did not return the income from the property sale within the stipulated time for Assessment Year 2006-07. Furthermore, the return filed by the mother on August 27, 2013, was beyond the six-year limitation period for processing by the Department. Since the amounts were credited to the assessee's account and remained undisclosed by him before the Assessing Officer, they were to be treated as income earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the order of the first appellate authority, answering the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal was allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri Harri Joseph, had credits totaling Rs.98,18,244/- in his bank account between August 8, 2005, and November 23, 2005. The Assessing Officer treated Rs.60,00,000/- of these credits as undisclosed income for Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee claimed this amount represented proceeds from the sale of a property by his mother, who deposited Rs.60,00,000/- into his account. The conveyance deed showed a sale value of Rs.14,00,000/-, while the actual sale price was stated to be Rs.74,00,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- based on the assessee's mother filing a return conceding capital gains on the property sale. The Revenue has appealed this decision.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the additions made to the income of the assessee can be set aside solely on the premise that the assessee's mother filed a return conceding capital gains on a property sale, which resulted in a deposit of Rs.60 lakhs in the assessee's bank account (question of law)? Assessee's Contentions: - Relied on an order under Section 271(1)(c) where the Income Tax Officer absolved the assessee from penalty due to an explanation offered for the source of Rs.60,00,000/-, suggesting this explanation should also be considered for assessment. Revenue's Contentions: - Argued that the mother, the owner and seller of the property, did not return the income from the sale within the time limit for Assessment Year 2006-07. - The return filed by the mother on August 27, 2013, could not be processed by the Department due to the expiry of the six-year limitation period. - The amounts were credited to the assessee's account and remained undisclosed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, thus constituting income earned in the said year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J: The question of law raised in the appeal is re-framed by us as follows: Whether the additions made to the income of the assessee can be set aside on the mere premise that with respect to the major addition of Rs.60 lakhs the mother of the assessee had filed a return of income conceding a capital gain on a property, the sale of which resulted in the deposit of Rs.60 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee?
The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on the ground of the assessee's mother having filed a return conceding capital gains, set aside the addition of Rs.60 lakhs as against the assessee. By Annexure-A, the assessment of the assessee was completed taking as undisclosed income, various credits in the bank account between 08.08.2005 and 23.11.2005. Out of the total amount of Rs.98,18,244/-, Rs.60,00,000/- according to the assessee represented the unaccounted receipt on the sale of the property by his mother. The property is said to have actually fetched Rs.74,00,000/- and the mother, the owner of - 3 - the property, deposited Rs.60,00,000/- in the account of the assessee. The document of conveyance, however, showed a value of only Rs.14,00,000/-. This was admitted by the assessee. A letter produced from the purchaser also confirmed the same. The Tribunal merely on the ground of a return having been filed, reversed the addition with respect of Rs.60,00,000/-.
The assessment year is 2006-07. The sale of the property was in the previous year of the assessment year. The return of income filed by the mother was on 27.08.2013. Though the return was filed, there was nothing done by the Department on the same especially since six years had elapsed by the time the return was filed. If at all, the Department could take up proceedings, for the assessment year 2006-07, it could have been only prior to 31.03.2013. The return was filed by the mother, on 27.08.2013. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the income that was added on to the assessee had already suffered capital gains tax at the hands of the mother. The fact remains that the amounts were credited to the account of the assessee and it remained as undisclosed income insofar as the assessee having returned only Rs.1,17,830/- in the subject assessment year.
The learned Counsel for the assessee would in fact point out an order issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the Income Tax Officer had found that since there was an explanation offered for the source of Rs.60,00,000/-, the assessee could be absolved from penalty to that extent. It is, hence, the submission of the assessee that the explanation could be taken note of for the purpose of assessment also. It is to be noticed that the mother, who was the owner of the property who sold the property, did not return the income from the sale of the property. The amounts also were credited to the accounts of the assessee, who also did not disclose the income before the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, there cannot be said to be a double taxation on the very same income. The mother obviously did not file any return within time for the assessment year 2006-07. The return filed on 27.08.2013 could not also be processed by the Department for reason of expiry of six years. In such circumstances, the assessee having admitted to the credit of the amounts, it has to be taken as income earned in the said year and assessed accordingly. We set aside the order of the Tribunal to that extent and restore - 5 - that of the first appellate authority, answering the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The appeal would stand allowed. No costs. K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE ASHOK MENON JUDGE Vku/- - 6 -
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026