2015 (7) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Kerala High Court Upholds Assessing Officer's Additions on Investments; Excludes Discrepancy, Seeks Clarification

SHRI. K.P. MADHAVAN NAIR Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KASARAGOD

The High Court of Kerala confirmed the Assessing Officer's additions towards unexplained fixed deposits and property investments for assessment years ... Unexplained fixed deposits and investments in property - appellant contended that the property in question was purchased by him along with four others and that therefore the entire investment cannot be added to his income - Held that:- For the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the authorities including the Tribunal have concurrently rejected the case of the assessee on the ground that the assessee could not produce any documents substantiating the claims and in fact the Tribunal has also entered a finding that the assertions made by the assessee before the Tribunal were contrary to his own case before the lower authorities. Such being the case, we cannot find fault with the Tribunal in having confirmed the findings of the lower authorities. There is absolutely no explanation regarding his failure in producing the documents before the Assessing Officer. That apart he also has not adduced any evidence at any stage of proceedings. He also did not adduce any evidence regarding the contributions that are allegedly received by him from the other persons who are stated to be the co-owners. Such being the case, the Tribunal's order confirming this order also does not merit any interference. So far as the assessment year 2006-2007 Not only that the details which were allegedly in the possession of the Assessing Officer and which is mentioned in the assessment order were not disclosed to the assessee, but also the Assessing Officer also has not disclosed any such details in the assessment order. This contention has also not been considered by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the inclusion of ₹ 15,14,200/- in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-2007, allegedly towards investment made by him in the property. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:Assessment years 2003-2004 to 2006-2007 - Unexplained fixed deposits, investments in property.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Kerala addressed common issues in appeals related to assessment years 2003-2004 to 2006-2007. The primary issue revolved around additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained fixed deposits and investments in property. For the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006, the Assessing Officer's additions were confirmed by the appellate authority. The assessee claimed that substantial deposits made were collected for the development of a religious institution, supported by a Chartered Accountant's account. However, the authorities, including the Tribunal, rejected the claims due to lack of documentary evidence and inconsistencies in the assessee's statements. Consequently, the Tribunal's confirmation of the findings was upheld.Regarding a fixed deposit and agricultural income treated as income from other sources, similar conclusions were drawn. The Tribunal accepted the Assessing Officer's findings on an investment in property. The appellant failed to provide explanations or evidence, leading to the confirmation of the investment as income. However, for the assessment year 2006-2007, discrepancies arose concerning an alleged investment. The assessee disputed the investment amount, requesting details for clarification. The Assessing Officer's failure to disclose relevant details to the assessee was noted, leading to the exclusion of the investment amount from the assessee's income for that year. The court directed a re-consideration of the matter with proper disclosure of documents and an opportunity for the assessee to explain.In conclusion, except for the specific issue regarding the investment in property for the assessment year 2006-2007, where the court set aside the Assessing Officer's finding, the Tribunal's orders were confirmed. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.