2018 (7) TMI 468 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal decision on undisclosed income

Gopal S. Pandit Prop. Pandit Developers Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax And The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax.

The High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a tax appeal case. The Court found no substantial legal issue in the Tribunal's ... Seized material corroborates the income fixed under the head “Pooja” though seized material - whether does not disclose such income from “Pooja” - Held that:- As far as the question raised before us is concerned, we have already in the case of GOPAL S. PANDIT PROP. PANDIT DEVELOPERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2018 (7) TMI 51 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 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. Issues:1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding the seized material corroborates the income fixed under the head 'Pooja' despite no disclosure of such income from 'Pooja'Rs.Analysis:The High Court, in the present Appeal, considered the Assessee's challenge against the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessee raised a substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's decision on the income under the head 'Pooja.' The Court referred to a previous judgment and concluded that the question did not give rise to any substantial legal issue but was a matter of estimate based on relevant seized material and the Assessee's statement under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.The Court quoted the findings of the Tribunal, which highlighted that the Assessing Officer had based the addition on seized material, specifically entries related to 'Mandir' and 'Pooja' income. The Assessee's estimated undisclosed income matched the figures in the seized documents, indicating no ambiguity in the statement regarding Pooja income. The Court emphasized that the seized material corroborated the Assessee's statement under section 132(4), and the subsequent retraction without explanation or corroborating evidence was deemed unacceptable as an afterthought.After hearing the arguments, the Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the Assessee's Appeal. The decision was made based on the adequacy of evidence from seized material and the lack of justification for the retraction of the statement. The Court ruled in favor of upholding the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal without costs.