2025 (11) TMI 230 - HC - Income Tax

s.158BD jurisdiction upheld for assessing undisclosed income; no substantial question under s.260A, petition dismissed based on concurrent factual findings

HC held that the Assessing Officer validly exercised jurisdiction under s.158BD to assess undisclosed income, and concurrent findings of fact by two fora ... Suppression of income - undisclosed income to be determined under Chapter XIVB or under section 69C - substantial question of law OR merely a question of law - notice u/s 158BD as issued to the appellant on 4th November 1997 required him to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income - appellant submits that the assessment order passed does not record satisfaction of the AO - Tribunal in its judgment held that the AO has jurisdiction to deal with the information supplied by the Assessing Officer of the Architect and held that the undisclosed income of the appellant has been correctly assessed by the AO - HELD THAT:- It is quite a well settled law that the High Court while exercising powers u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and not merely a question of law. The expression “undisclosed income” has been defined u/s 158B(b) of the Income Tax Act to include any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions, which represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of Income Tax Act, or any expense deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false. Section 158BD of the Income Tax provides that where the AO is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to or pertains to or relates to any person other than the person (not specified person) with respect to whom search was initiated u/s 132 or requisition was made u/s 132B. We find that the Tribunal referred to cross-examination of Shri. S. M. Lasrado, the Architect, who deposed that the appellant had made cash payments to him on various dates. The Tribunal also referred to section 292B to reflect on the undisclosed income of the appellant. Two forums have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the issue of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the appellant did not disclose income. We find that the Tribunal has discussed in the judgment dated 9th July 2003 that the requirements in law are satisfied and the petitioner had suppressed income. Merely referring to the statutory provisions and contending that he had disclosed the expenditure are not sufficient grounds to hold that the substantial question of law as formulated vide order dated 3rd December 2004 shall arise in this case. In “Chunnilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd.” [1962 (3) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court expounded the expression “substantial question of law” held What is a substantial question of law as between the parties would certainly depend upon the facts and circumstances of every case. Thus, for instance, if a question of law had been settled by the highest Court of the country the question of law however important or difficult it may have been regarded in the past and however much it may affect any of the parties would cease to be a substantial question of law. Nor again, would a question of law which is palpably absurd be a substantial question of law as between the parties. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the undisclosed income was correctly determined under Chapter XIV-B (section 158BD) of the Income Tax Act and not under section 69C. 2. Whether the assessment/order under section 158BD is invalid for want of recording the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and related procedural requirements (including timing of notice under section 158BD and prerequisites under sections 132/132B). 3. Whether the question posed for admission constitutes a substantial question of law warranting interference under section 260A (i.e., whether the matter raised a substantial question of law as opposed to a question of fact). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Applicability of Chapter XIV-B (section 158BD) v. Section 69C Legal framework: Section 158B(b) defines 'undisclosed income'; section 158BD permits assessment of undisclosed income pertaining to persons other than the person searched where the Assessing Officer is satisfied; section 69C addresses unexplained investments, loans, deposits, etc., forming part of taxable income. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal examined evidentiary material (including cross-examination of the architect) and applied statutory definitions and principles applicable to undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B; the Court referred to the Tribunal's reliance on section 292B to reflect on undisclosed income. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal and the Court treated the sums as undisclosed income attributable to the assessee on the basis of contemporaneous material arising from the search/requisitioned records (evidence of cash payments to the architect). The Tribunal concluded that the scheme of Chapter XIV-B was triggered because undisclosed income belonging to a person other than the person searched was established; consequently, assessment under section 158BD was appropriate rather than proceeding under section 69C. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio-where search/requisitioned material establishes undisclosed income of a person other than the person searched, the Assessing Officer may assess that income under Chapter XIV-B (section 158BD); application of section 69C is not required where the statutory trigger and satisfaction for section 158BD are met. Obiter-discussion of illustrative statutory provisions (e.g., section 292B) as corroborative material. Conclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the undisclosed income was properly determined under Chapter XIV-B (section 158BD) and not under section 69C, on the basis of the recorded factual findings and statutory scheme. Issue 2 - Validity of Assessment for Alleged Non-Recording of Satisfaction/Procedural Defects Legal framework: Chapter XIV-B assessments under section 158BD require the Assessing Officer to be satisfied that undisclosed income relates to a person other than the person searched; search/requisition under section 132/132B and issue of notices under sections 158BC/158BD are procedural preconditions governed by statutory timelines and requirements. Precedent Treatment: The appellant relied on authority to contend invalidity for want of recorded satisfaction; the Tribunal had found the legal requirements satisfied after considering evidence from the searched person's records and witness testimony. The Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by two fora are significant and not readily disturbed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that two forums had concurrently recorded findings that the assessee had suppressed income and that the requirements in law for invoking section 158BD were satisfied. Mere reference to statutory provisions and assertions of disclosure of expenditure did not negate the factual findings. The Court further noted the Tribunal's discussion of admissible evidence (cross-examination, entries) supporting the satisfaction. The Court declined to treat alleged procedural omissions as raising a substantial question of law where the factual foundation for satisfaction was sustained. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio-concurrent factual findings by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal that statutory preconditions for section 158BD exist will uphold the assessment unless demonstrably vitiated; procedural irregularities not shown to have affected the core factual satisfaction do not necessarily invalidate the assessment. Obiter-remarks on the proviso added to section 158BD and prospectivity were adverted to but not treated as decisive. Conclusion: The Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the contention that the assessment was invalid for want of recorded satisfaction; the statutory requirements were found to be satisfied on the record and the assessment under section 158BD was sustained. Issue 3 - Whether the Question Raised Amounts to a Substantial Question of Law under Section 260A Legal framework: Appellate jurisdiction under the relevant provision permits interference only where a substantial question of law arises; a question is 'involving in the case' when it is founded on the pleadings and sustainable findings of fact and is necessary for a just decision; a substantial question of law is one of substance between the parties, not merely a dispute on facts or an issue already settled by law. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied established tests for what constitutes a substantial question of law, including the need for the question to arise from the factual foundation and for there to be genuine legal doubt or unsettled principle warranting adjudication. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the admitted substantial question (whether income was assessed under Chapter XIV-B and not under section 69C) did not raise a substantial question of law because concurrent findings of fact by the AO and the Tribunal supported the invocation of section 158BD; the question was essentially factual and involved application of a settled statutory scheme to the facts. The Court emphasized that where facts sustain the tribunal's view and existing legal principles have been correctly applied, the matter does not amount to a substantial question of law for further adjudication under the appellate provision. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio-the High Court will not entertain an appeal under the special appellate provision unless a question of law of substance, distinct from factual determinations and not foreclosed by settled law, is raised; questions arising purely from concurrent factual findings do not qualify. Obiter-discussion of tests and illustrative authorities on 'substantial question of law' applied to the facts of the matter. Conclusion: The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, and accordingly dismissed the appeal under the special appellate jurisdiction.