1985 (11) TMI 94 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Validates Reassessment, Adds Undisclosed Income

The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) and reinstated the addition of Rs. 5,04,127 as undisclosed income. The ... Reassessment, Non-Disclosure Of Primary Facts, Unexplained Investment Issues Involved:1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Justification for the addition of Rs. 5,04,127 as undisclosed income.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147(a):Arguments by the ITO:- The ITO initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) after detecting that the assessee suppressed stock of goods amounting to Rs. 5,04,127, which led to income escaping assessment due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.- Notices under sections 148 and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee, but there was no compliance, leading to the assessment being made under section 144.Arguments by the Assessee:- The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was not received personally as the assessee had shifted to Ahmedabad, and the notice was received by the authorized advocate.- The assessee contended that the initiation of proceedings under section 147(a) was void ab initio as there was no new fact that came to the knowledge of the ITO after the original assessment.- It was argued that the original ITO had already examined the difference in stock values and was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee, indicating no failure to disclose material facts.Findings by the Commissioner (Appeals):- The Commissioner (Appeals) found no new fact or omission by the assessee that justified the reassessment.- It was noted that the original ITO had considered the stock difference during the original assessment and no fresh information was received after that.- The Commissioner (Appeals) inferred that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening under section 147(a).Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal held that the original ITO did not form any definite opinion on the stock difference, and thus, there was no question of changing an opinion.- It was concluded that the action under section 147(a) by the ITO was proper and valid as the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.2. Justification for the Addition of Rs. 5,04,127 as Undisclosed Income:Arguments by the ITO:- The ITO argued that the assessee disclosed stock amounting to Rs. 9,21,507 to the bank to obtain a loan, whereas the balance sheet showed only Rs. 6,42,703, indicating suppression of stock worth Rs. 5,04,127.- The ITO treated this difference as undisclosed income due to the failure of the assessee to comply with notices under sections 148 and 142(1).Arguments by the Assessee:- The assessee contended that the stock values declared to the bank were inflated to obtain higher financial assistance, a common practice among traders.- It was argued that the stock records were under constant scrutiny by government agencies and no discrepancies were found.- The assessee relied on judicial precedents suggesting that declarations to banks should not be taken as conclusive evidence of actual stock held.Findings by the Commissioner (Appeals):- The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the assessee's stock records were regularly checked by government agencies and no faults were found.- It was observed that the practice of inflating stock values for bank loans was common and did not necessarily indicate actual possession of such stock.- The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that there was no evidence, apart from the bank declaration, to show that the assessee had more stock than recorded in the books.Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and found no material to support the claim that the stock declaration to the bank was a rough estimate.- It was held that the sworn statement to the bank could not be disregarded without substantial evidence to prove it was motivated.- The Tribunal restored the ITO's order, concluding that the addition of Rs. 5,04,127 as undisclosed income was justified.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) and restoring the addition of Rs. 5,04,127 as undisclosed income. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was reversed on both counts.