TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period pursuant to search and seizure operation. 2. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with such a Judgment and Order of this Court in these appeals, especially aggrieved by the allowing of the Revenue's appeals in part and dismissal of the assessee's appeals in part, Civil Appeal No.5762­5771 of 2005 was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 3. Pertinently, the above appeals were by the assessee. By a common order passed on 15­9­2005, the Judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Judgment of the High Court was set aside on the simple ground that the High Court did not frame the substantial questions of law which arose for consideration in the appeal, as required by Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the I.T. Act, 1961")). 4. Such an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India resulted in remand of the cases and restoration of the same to this Court. 5. Since it is an understanding of both sides that when the High Court Judgment and Order in all appeals (those of the Revenue and the assessee) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that revives for consideration all the appeals. 6. It is in these circumstances th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere were disclosures in the name of other sister concern of the assessee-­firm and their partners. The details of this disclosure are to be found on page 3 of the memo of Income Tax Appeal No.17 of 2015. After noticing this disclosure and which was to the tune of Rs. 1,29,00,000/­ as far as the sister concern, and Rs. 75 lakhs as far as the assessee and the V.V. Market project, notices under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued for the Assessment Years 1990-­91 to 1993-­94 on 22.­9­.1994. 12. They were served on the assessee. The assessee filed a revised return of income before the receipt of these notices. The revised return of income filed showed some additional income declared under Section 132(4) but that declaration has been reduced by claiming certain expenses on account of labour payment, etc.. That is why the total income shown in the revised return of income is less than the amount declared under Section 132(4). The V.V. Market project commenced in October, 1988 and after referring to its salient features, namely, a high­ rise tower building of 17 storeys with some amenities and allotment of 472 vegetable stalls to the nominees of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invite our attention to Section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Mr. Suresh Kumar would submit that the Tribunal has not faulted the Assessing Officer for making a reference not once but twice to the DVO. The Assessing Officer has not been faulted for relying on the report of the DVO. If this report constitutes a valid piece of evidence, then, the Assessing Officer was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory. Our attention has been invited to para 11.8 of the Assessing Officer's order at page 34 of the paper­-book. Mr. Suresh Kumar would submit that the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer required no interference by the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal at least as they are based on a statement of Mr. Golani, copy of which is at page 61 of the paper-­book. 16. Thereafter, inviting our attention to page 151 of the paper­-book, Mr. Suresh Kumar would submit that the Tribunal after analysing these facts has partially modified the Assessing Officer's order. That is not in relation to the Assessing Officer's exercise of computation of the 'on money'. The 'on money' transact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of expenditure ought to be satisfactory and in the opinion of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, either there is no explanation for the source of the expenditure or there is an explanation which is unsatisfactory. However, the opinion in that behalf has to be clearly recorded by the Assessing Officer and his order must speak for itself. The order under challenge before the Tribunal did not speak for itself but proceeded on some assumptions. Therefore, any conjectures or surmises on the part of the authorities would not justify terming the expenditure as an income. Mr. Nitesh Joshi has highlighted that part of the Tribunal's order where it deals with the explanation of the assessee and concludes from the record that so far as 'on money' having been identified, treated as revenue receipt and brought to tax, then, the source of expenditure gets explained. If that explanation is satisfactory and the Tribunal has applied the test of no double addition to the income, then, there is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal nor has it misdirected itself in law. For these reasons, Mr. Nitesh Joshi would submit that the Revenue's appeals be dismissed. 19. We have with the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ording to the Tribunal. The 'on money' could not have been treated as uniform irrespective of the location of the shop. There are specific advantages derived by the location of the shop on the ground floor, or basement and with frontage to the road. Therefore, all these factors and test not being applied, the Tribunal modified the Assessing Officer's order. The Tribunal, to be fair to both sides, did not probe or scrutinise the source of the power of the Assessing Officer in making reference to the DVO. It proceeded on the footing that such a reference could have been made and if made, what are the consequences thereof. Thus, the consequences then have been considered, properly analysed and to the extent the law permits, the order of the Assessing Officer has been maintained. 21. When it was disturbed and interfered with, the Tribunal found that there was indeed a justification for such interference. If the unaccounted expenditure is determined, then, necessarily the question which would arise for consideration before the Tribunal is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under Section 69C for the years under consideration. The Tribunal, in para....