2017 (9) TMI 2041 - HC - Income Tax

HC Upholds ITAT Order; Revenue's Appeal on 1992-93 Income Assessment Dismissed; Case Remanded for Further Review.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Versus Smt. Pratima H Mehta

The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the ITAT's order regarding the income assessment for the Assessment Year 1992-93. The Tribunal had ... Assessment completed u/s 144 - non-cooperation from the assessee and failure to comply with the Notice u/s 142(1) - data available on computer was copied and seized. The information was also collected from various sources, including the Custodian, clients/brokers and companies connected with the share transactions carried out by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The income sustained by the AO ought to have been taxed in the hands of Harshad Mehta and the assessee before the Tribunal. That is how the commonality to the case of Hitesh Mehta and others was attempted to be established. The Special Counsel, appearing for the Revenue, would submit before the Tribunal that since similar issues are involved in the appeal of Smt. Pratima Mehta, the assessee before us, when the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the AO for passing a de novo assessment order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, then, he would have no objection to this course. The argument was that no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter as the Books of Account were not audited. Tribunal has found that all these arguments were common and to the earlier cases. On facts, it found no justification for taking a different view. We do not think such an order of the Tribunal raises any substantial questions of law. Issues:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding assessment of income for Assessment Year 1992-93 based on lack of Books of Account and reliability of submitted documents.Analysis:The High Court heard an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment of income for the Assessment Year 1992-93. The appellant, the Revenue, contended that the assessee was a notified person in the Harshad Mehta Group and her assets were vested in the Custodian under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The original assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-cooperation of the assessee and absence of Books of Account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly confirmed the additions, but the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.During the proceedings, the assessee submitted printouts claimed to be Books of Account for the first time, which were found to have serious defects and unreliability. The Assessing Officer rejected these Books under Section 145(2) and computed the income using the net accretion method. The assessee then appealed against the assessment order, which was partly allowed by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer without adjudicating the issues raised, based on similar orders in other cases involving the Mehta family.The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on common arguments and facts from earlier cases involving the Mehta family. The Court found no substantial questions of law raised by the order of the Tribunal. The Special Counsel for the Revenue had no objection to remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment considering the common issues involved. The Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, upholding the Tribunal's decision.