AVESTA BIOTHERAPEUTICS AND RESEARCH PRIVATE vs. HEALINGCROS PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
CA/39/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01023667201723 February 2017Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The issue was a matter of estimation based on seized material and the assessee's statement regarding his income as a priest.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a priest, appealed against an ITAT order that upheld additions to his income based on seized material and his statement under Section 132(4). The seized material allegedly corroborated income from 'Pooja'.

What were the issues?

Whether seized material corroborates income from 'Pooja' when it allegedly does not disclose such income. Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(4),Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

I.T.A. No.39/2017

BETWEEN :

GOPAL S. PANDIT PROP. PANDIT DEVELOPERS ‘EMPORIUM’, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, III FLOOR, OLD PUMP WELL ROAD, KANAKANADY, MANGALORE - 575 002.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)

AND :

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDING, MANGALORE - 575 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE - 575 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.07.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.1198/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-2010, PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT MODIFYING Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another .

2/5

THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.07.2016 IN ITA NO.1198/BANG/2013 AND DIRECT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Mr. R.Chandrashekar, Adv. for Appellant - Assessee Mr. Jeevan R. Neeralgi, Adv. for Respondents – Revenue

In the present Appeal filed by the Assessee against the Order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Annexure-A dated 27.07.2016, the following purported substantial question of law has been suggested by the Assessee.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding the seized material corroborates the income fixed under the head “Pooja” though seized material does not disclose such income from “Pooja”?

Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another .

3/5

2.

As far as the question raised before us is concerned, we have already held in I.T.A.No.36/2017 in the case of 'Gopal. V. Pandit v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another’, that we are of the opinion that the same does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is a matter of estimate based on the relevant material seized during the course of search and the statement recorded of the Assessee u/s. 132[4] of the Act as to what was the income of the Assessee who was working as Priest during the relevant period.

3.

The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference. “27. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representative and considered the relevant material on record. The first objection by the learned Authorised Representative is that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and in the reassessment under Section 153A, no addition Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another .

4/5

can be made except based on seized material. We find that the Assessing Officer has placed a copy of the seized material at page 10 of the assessment order which clearly shows different entries recorded by the assessee including an entry of Mandir and Pooja of Rs.35 lakhs for the F.Y.2005-06. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not based merely on statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the assessee in the statement had estimated the undisclosed income of Rs.75 lakhs for 3 assessment years under consideration which matches the figures and amounts shown in the seized document relating to Pooja income of Rs.35 lakhs, Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively. We find that there is no ambiguity in the statement of assessee regarding the Pooja income which has been clearly corroborated by the seized material. Thus when there is a sufficient evidence seized material which corroborates the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 132(4) on 23.2.2009 then the subsequent retraction of the statement by the assessee without any corroborating evidence cannot be accepted as the assessee has not explained the statement and how the income Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another .

5/5

shown in the seized material is not correct. Therefore mere retraction of statement without explaining circumstances as well as corroborating evidence, it cannot be accepted being an after thought. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in this ground of the assessee and the same is dismissed.”

4.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises. The Appeal of the Assessee is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

NC.

More judgments on Section 132(4)

All 3,819 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →