2016 (9) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

High Court overturns assessment, emphasizes evidence proof, revenue win

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - III, KOL Versus M/s. BHARAT LUB INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.

The High Court allowed the appeal, upholding the CIT's order to set aside the assessment under Section 263 due to the Assessing Officer's failure to ... Revision u/s 263 - Tribunal quashing the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax setting aside the assessment and to consider the land purchase deeds found at the time of the search, which the Assessing Officer had failed to examine and consider before passing the assessment order - Held that:- Revenue pointed out the other submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee goes to show that the assessee was asserting right in respect of the property purchased. There is some substance in the submission of Mr. Agarwal. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Tribunal with regard to the land purchased allegedly at an under value is set aside and the order of the CIT is restored. It will, however, be open to the assessee to adduce appropriate evidence that the assessee was not connected with the land purchased, evidenced by the title deeds found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee. - Decided in favour of the revenue. Issues involved:Appeal against ITAT judgment quashing revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and directing examination of Section 40A(3) applicability and land purchase deeds.Analysis:1. Revision Order under Section 263:The CIT set aside the assessment order under Section 263 due to the Assessing Officer's failure to examine the applicability of Section 40A(3) and the actual purchase price for land. This was deemed as leading to an erroneous assessment prejudicial to revenue's interest.2. Applicability of Section 40A(3):The High Court previously delivered a judgment on this issue, indicating that the Tribunal's decision on the applicability of Section 40A(3) to an assessment made on a gross profit rate basis cannot be sustained based on their earlier ruling.3. Examination of Actual Purchase Price:The revenue contended that the Assessing Officer's failure to examine the actual purchase price paid for the land was a crucial oversight. Referring to Section 132(4A), it was argued that a presumption exists that documents found in possession belong to the assessee, unless proven otherwise.4. Ownership of Land Purchased:The assessee claimed that the seized document did not pertain to them but to other assessees, indicating that any addition should be made in their hands. The revenue argued that the assessee had not provided evidence to show that the land purchased did not belong to them.5. Decision and Conclusion:The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision regarding the land purchased allegedly at an undervalue and upheld the CIT's order. The assessee was given the opportunity to present evidence to prove they were not connected to the purchased land. The question posed was answered in the negative and in favor of the revenue, resulting in the appeal being allowed.In conclusion, the High Court's detailed analysis and decision in this case revolved around the revision order under Section 263, the applicability of Section 40A(3), examination of the actual purchase price, ownership of the purchased land, and the final judgment favoring the revenue's appeal.