TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rejects applicant's plea for legal questions direction in income tax case, emphasizes lack of merit</h1> The court rejected the applicant's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking direction to ITAT to state questions of law. The ... Assessment Year, Business Premises, Jewellery And Ornaments, Question Of Law Issues:- Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for direction to ITAT to state questions of law- Seizure of jewellery and ornaments during raid on business premises- Assessment order under section 132(5) of the Act- Rejection of plea by Commissioner of Income-tax and application of section 69 of the Act- Appeal to ITAT and subsequent rejection of reference under section 256(1) of the Act- Questions proposed for reference to the court- Arguments regarding applicability of section 69 of the Act and reassessment of scooter investment- Response by standing counsel for Income-tax Department- Consideration of evidence and findings by tax authorities- Rejection of application for reference by the courtAnalysis:The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the applicant sought a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to state questions of law for the court's decision. The business premises of the applicant were raided, resulting in the seizure of jewellery and ornaments worth Rs. 1,00,600, leading to an assessment order under section 132(5) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the applicant's plea regarding the seized assets and invoked section 69 of the Act to treat the value of jewellery, ornaments, and money invested in a scooter as the applicant's income for the relevant financial year. Subsequent appeals to the ITAT and requests for reference were unsuccessful, prompting the application to the court.During the proceedings, the applicant's counsel argued that for section 69 of the Act to apply, the Assessing Officer must find that investments were made in the preceding financial year and not recorded in the books of account. The counsel contended that without such a finding, section 69 could not be invoked to treat the investments as income. Additionally, it was argued that the investment in the scooter, already assessed in the previous year, should not have been reassessed for the current financial year. The standing counsel for the Income-tax Department countered these arguments by highlighting the lack of substantiated evidence supporting the applicant's claims, particularly regarding loans and scooter investments.The court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, found no merit in the application for reference as it did not identify any questions of law arising from the ITAT's order. The court noted that the applicant's contentions regarding the seized assets belonging to the ancestral business were not raised before the tax authorities and lacked substantiation. It was also observed that the tax authorities' orders contained the necessary findings required by section 69 of the Act. Consequently, the court rejected the application, emphasizing the absence of legal questions warranting further consideration.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural history, legal arguments, evidentiary considerations, and the court's ultimate decision in rejecting the application for reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
