TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion in twelve appeals out of which six were preferred by the respondent i.e., Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "assessee"], while the remaining six appeals were preferred by the appellant [hereafter referred to as "revenue"]. 1.2 The impugned order concerned six assessment years [in short "AYs"] i.e., 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 20172018. 2. The record shows that the Tribunal was, principally, grappling with three broad issues. These issues concerned additions/deletions made to the declared/returned income of the assessee under the following broad heads: (i) Additions qua amounts received by the assessee in the form of share capital/share premium under Sections 68 of the Act. (ii) Deletions made on account of alleged bogus purchase transactions. Under this head, the Assessing Officer ruled that 25% of the bogus purchases in value should be added to the assessee's declared/returned income. (iii) Addition made, under Section 68 of the Act, in respect of monies deposited by the assessee with its banker during the demonetization period. 2.1. Insofar as issue nos. (i) and (ii) are concerned, they were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to when returns were filed and the amount which was declared as income by the assessee is set forth hereafter: AY Date of return of income Amount Declared/Returned as Income 2015-2016 30.03.2017 Rs. 15,87,75,950/- 2016-2017 29.12.2017 Rs. 35,50,09,894/- 2017-2018 29.12.2017 Rs. 68,18,55,980/- 3.4. Thus the position which emerged qua each of the six AYs, once additions/deletions were made by the AO, and thereafter, when some of these were deleted/scaled down by CIT(A), is set forth hereafter: Particulars Assessment Years 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 ITA No. 69/2021 71/2021 72/2021 73/2021 70/2021 68/2021 Date of filing of return of income 31.10.2013 11.03.2015 01.04.2015 31.03.2017 29.12.2017 29.12.2017 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of share capital/premium: (i) Unrelated parties 48,19,87,000 NA NA NA NA NA (ii) From alleged associated parties: - M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders 14,92,00,000 NA NA NA NA NA -M/s. Sri Balaji Enterprise NA 15,20,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....53,28,35,658 53,28,35,658 1,21,763 4,87,053 Total 3,47,73,43,098 3,47,73,43,098 9,00,53,54,461 3,13,16,21,562 4. The record shows that, during the search and seizure operations, the statement of the Managing Director, Mr Arpesh Garg was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. The assessment was made under Section 153A of the Act. 4.1. It is also relevant to note that the statement made by Mr Arpesh Garg i.e., the Managing Director of the assessee on 22.03.2017 (which is referred to above) was retracted by him on 24.03.2017, that is, within two days. 4.2. What is of some significance is that a deviation report dated 20.12.2018 was prepared by the AO, which was, markedly different from the assessment orders passed by him. This aspect of the matter has been adverted to at great length by the Tribunal in the impugned order and shall also be alluded to by us in the latter part of the judgment. 4.3. Suffice it to state that the Deputy Director of Investigation Wing had submitted a written appraisal report on 04.01.2018. Despite the stand taken by the Deputy Director (Investigation) in the appraisal report and the communication dated 24.12.2018, at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gross profit rate had to be estimated on a reasonable basis keeping in mind the prevailing market trend. 4.6 As regards cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period; against a proposal to add Rs. 180.53 crores, as suggested by the Investigation Wing, for the reasons given in the deviation report, the amount was pared down to Rs. 99.04 crores. Thus, the suggested addition on this score to the total income of the assessee concerning AY 2017-2018 was restricted to Rs. 99.04 crores. 5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that the revenue, upon queries being raised by the Tribunal concerning various issues including the basis on which the deviation report had been prepared in the instant matter, was told in no uncertain terms that preparation of a "deviation note" is part of the assessment proceedings as per the guidelines envisaged in the Income Tax Manual of Office Procedure: Vol.-II (Technical, Chapter-3, paragraph 4 at page 44) (see paragraph 51 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal). 5.1. Furthermore, the Tribunal, in paragraph 92 of the impugned order, after perusal of the appraisal report prepared by the Investigation Wing, has ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal had erred in applying the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III v. Kabul Chawla, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11555, and, thus, wrongly concluded that insofar as AYs 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 was concerned, those assessments could not be disturbed. (v) The Tribunal also erred in ignoring concurrent findings returned by, both, the A.O. and the CIT(A) that the investor entities had not been able to establish their creditworthiness, and, thus, the ostensible investment made in the assessee was a sham transaction. The fact that the investor entities had returned borrowed funds, as claimed by the assessee, did not add to their creditworthiness. (vi) Although the Tribunal relied upon certain parts of the deviation report to set aside the conclusions reached by the A.O. and the CIT(A), it erroneously chose to ignore the conclusion arrived at in the deviation report that the assessee had not been able to account for Rs. 99.04 crores which had been deposited by it, in the wake of demonetization. (vii) Likewise, the Tribunal also failed to take note of the observations made in the deviation report t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be set aside. (ii) A careful perusal of the deviation report and the assessment orders would show that the A.O. has acted under the dictate of the investigation wing, as noted by the Tribunal in paragraphs 91 and 92 of the impugned order. The additions [qua bogus purchases] were made to the assessee's declared/returned income only to protect the interest of the revenue, as directed by the investigation wing. On this short ground alone, the assessment orders deserved to be set aside. The A.O. performs a quasijudicial function, which could not have been interfered with by the revenue i.e., in this case, the investigation wing. [See P. Palaniswami v. Shri Ram Popular Service (P) Ltd. & Anr., (1974) 1 SCC 197.] (iii) In this context, it is important to note that the A.O. had prepared the deviation report dated 20.12.2018, after perusing the appraisal report generated by the investigation wing pursuant to the search and seizure operation carried out vis-a-vis the assessee on 21.03.2017. The deviation report prepared by the A.O. had received the approval of the ACIT, despite which the A.O. reversed its position while passing the assessment orders, as alluded to above, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f cash deposited by the assessee with its banker post demonetization, the Tribunal, on carrying out an analysis of the transactions made during the relevant period, came to the conclusion that the cash deposited aligned with the cash sales effected by the assessee during the said period. As noted by the Tribunal, there was no evidence available on record which would persuade it to hold that the assessee had booked non-existent sales. Furthermore, as noted by the Tribunal, the A.O., while making the addition under this head, erroneously added Rs. 63.41 crores, which included new currency notes of denomination of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 500 and old currency notes bearing the denomination of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 50/-, Rs. 20/- and Rs. 10/-; which had not been demonetized. The Tribunal also noted, in this context, that the A.O. had failed to take into account that the period in issue spanned between 9.11.2016 and 30.12.2016, and, therefore, the total amount worked out to Rs. 175.57 crores and not 180.53 crores, which was the sum that the A.O. sought to add to the assessee's declared/returned income. Thus, in effect, the Tribunal concluded that no addition could be made even under this head. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial. 10.5. Likewise, insofar as the retraction (as noted above) was concerned, the Tribunal noted that in the letter dated 24.03.2017, it had only been indicated that to avail benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna (PMGKY) Scheme, it had offered to pay tax on Rs. 50 crores, which was later modified to Rs. 30 crores. The Tribunal notes that there was no disclosure concerning share capital, and, hence, the aforementioned statement, which formed part of the letter dated 24.03.2017, could not be treated as incriminating material. 10.6. Insofar as the revenue sought to argue that photocopies of (blank) share transfer forms, (blank) signed receipts, (blank) signed power of attorney and other documents necessary for the transfer of shares was concerned- that the said documents constituted incriminating material, the Tribunal noted the following : (i) Firstly, out of the 36 shareholders, photocopies were found only qua 12 shareholders. (ii) Secondly, that such transfer forms and documents even when recovered in original, as per its [i.e., the Tribunal] own precedents^1, had not been considered as incriminating material to unravel a concluded assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nating material. Mr Sharma was not able to draw our attention to any authority, which has taken a contrary view. According to the Tribunal, even in those cases where originals of such documents were found, they were not construed as incriminating material, based on which assessment could be made under Section 153(A) read with Section 143(3) of the Act. Significantly, the revenue chose not to examine those, who had ostensibly executed these documents. It was not argued before us that the finding returned by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter was perverse. 11.3. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid, we concur with the view of the Tribunal that assessments concluded in respect of AYs 2012-2013, 20132014 and 2014-2015 under Section 143(3) of the Act could not be disturbed, as no incriminating material was found. 11.4. Besides this, on merits, the Tribunal, after detailing out in paragraph 76 of the impugned order the trail of the money received from various entities in the form of share capital/share application money, concluded that the assessee had been able to place before the A.O. sufficient documentary evidence which established that the money which the assessee had p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., income generated which was not recorded in the books of accounts) had been funnelled in the form of investment by way of share capital/share premium, it could not be made the basis for making addition under Section 68 of the Act. 11.7. It is important to bear in mind that Section 68 empowers the AO (provided all others ingredients are met) to tax credits found in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee for any previous year, for which he offers no explanation about its nature and source. The first proviso, which was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 in the context of share application money, share capital, share premium or any other amount by whatever name called, engrafted a deeming section as to when the explanation would be considered satisfactory. Pertinently, motivation of the assessee in routing its own money (which was given to the investor entities in the form of loan, etcetera) as an investment in share capital/share premium has not been adverted to therein. That motivation is not the basis for attracting the provisions of the Income Tax Act, if otherwise, an assessee does not fall within its net, is a well-established principle. This principle, in our view, sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e revenue before us, it is referred to in the appeal. A perusal of the facts obtaining in that case, whereby addition under Section 68 of the Act was sustained, would show that they are distinguishable from the facts which obtain in the instant matter. In that case, the assessee-company had claimed that it had received money in the form of share capital/share premium from certain investors; however, the assessee was unable to produce before the AO the concerned investors; who had made the investment. Furthermore, during the search action, one of the directors of the assessee had made a categorical statement that the entire investment was bogus and that blank receipts were obtained from shareholders as also signatures were obtained on blank share transfer forms. Pertinently, this statement made by the director of the assessee was not retracted. 13.1. As noticed in the instant matter, the Tribunal found that it was the assessee's money which was routed back to it, albeit, through banking channels. The director of the assessee i.e., Mr Arpesh Garg retracted his statement, within 48 hours. More importantly, the AO in the deviation report, inter alia, made the following observations ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tries (India) (P.) Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 34 (Bombay)^6] 14.2. Therefore, on facts, what is crucial is the observations that the AO made in his deviation report, with respect to the share premium/share capital. For the sake of convenience, the same are extracted hereafter : "......i) On verification from records as well as details and evidences filed by the assessee, it is seen that assessment proceeding u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted for the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the issues of Share Capital were examined and verified in detail by the Assessing Officer and were partly accepted at that stage. ii) It has been noticed that the AO had added an amount of Rs. 18.50 Crs to the total income of Assessee Company for AY 2012-13 on account of share application & premium. The above addition of Rs. 18.50 Crs was later on deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) after examination of the details filed by the assessee. Since the Ld. CIT (A) being a higher authority had duly examined the amount of Share Capital of Rs. 18.50 Crs and allowed relief thereof against which no appeal was preferred by the department before the Income Tax App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application money / premium which also suggests that sources of funds introduced in the shares is assessee itself. vi) Similar is the case in the Assessment Years 2014-15, 201516, 2016-17 and 2017-18 wherein from the details filed by the assessee it is seen that the ultimate sources of the share application money received by the assessee was from the disclosed sources of the assessee itself. The transactions are verifiable from the bank accounts of the both the parties. vii) In some cases Assessee Company has routed its own fund directly through the share application money transactions; in those cases sources are apparently proved. viii) It has also been observed that the assessee company has routed its funds through different intermediaries persons who are closely associated and under the control of the assessee company, therefore, the commission payments @2% of the transaction value is not likely. However the assessee may make some payment to oblige them. Commission payment @2% is to be restricted only to cases where share capital/premium is held to be bogus. ix) As the source of share capital/premium can be traced directly to the bank accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed separately qua the AYs in issue), reduced the disallowance to Rs. 313,16,21,562/-. 15.1. In the context of this aspect, the Tribunal returned the following findings of fact : (i) The CIT(A), during proceedings before him, had called for a remand report from A.O. The A.O., accordingly, had submitted the remand report dated 22.03.2019. (ii) In the remand report, the A.O. had adverted to the fact that 50% of the purchases had been sourced by the assessee from third parties i.e., nonrelated parties. These transactions were verified, and in furtherance thereto notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued to the concerned persons. The assessee had filed confirmation letters of the third parties. The reply received from the third parties, in response to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, did not reveal any variation. (iii) Since no variation was found between the responses received from the third parties and purchases, as recorded in the assessee's books, the addition made on account of bogus purchases was not sustainable. (iv) In the remand report, the A.O. had dropped the issue concerning the purported shortage of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,71,935/-. 15.2. Thus, according to the Tribunal, if as portrayed by the revenue, the purchases were bogus then it was unlikely that the assessee would have recorded a profit against the same in its books of accounts. The Tribunal notes that the revenue cannot blow hot and cold i.e., cannot portray the purchases as bogus, even while holding that the sales made to those very parties were genuine. 15.3. Furthermore, according to the Tribunal, the A.O. had not placed on record any material to justify the disallowance of 25% of the purchases on the ground that they were bogus without carrying out any inquiry or investigation. In particular, the Tribunal also flagged the issue that the purported shortage of stock amounting to Rs. 450 crores was based on a reference made qua that aspect in the appraisal report which, as noted above, did not find mention in the remand report, as during the search it was found that the stock worth the aforementioned value was lying at the assessee's warehouse in Sonipat; something which was completely ignored. This position, according to the Tribunal, was fortified by the fact that no addition in respect of any excess or shortage of stock had been m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said provision-however, before embarking on that course, the CIT(A) would have to form a view, after examining the books of accounts, that he/she is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. The Tribunal was of the view that the CIT(A) was also required to examine the method of accounting followed by the assessee. 15.6. It appears, as has been recorded by the Tribunal, that the CIT(A) did not call for the books of accounts i.e., to examine the same. Furthermore, the Tribunal records that the A.O., in the remand report, did not advert to the fact that the books of accounts were either incorrect or incomplete. According to the Tribunal, the books of accounts could not have been rejected till such time the revenue found "patent, latent and glaring defects in the books of accounts". The revenue, according to the Tribunal, made no such attempt and simply relied upon the statement of the Managing Director, which was retracted and in any event, did not relate to the booking of "bogus expenditure". Therefore, insofar as the Tribunal was concerned, the rejection of books of accounts by the CIT(A) did not meet the legal standards. 15.7. Give....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....those parties in the similar line of business are less than the gross profit declared by the assessee. 106. Further, the quantification of the profit by the learned CIT - A, has been made on in comprehensible assumptions. He applied the gross profit rate of other parties to the sales of allegedly bogus parties. He has application of the gross profit rate also changed from the year to year. In 1 of the years, he adopted the gross profit rate being average of gross profit of 2 preceding years on by the assessee from other parties and applied the same rate to the sales from allegedly bogus parties. We fail to understand that how the gross profit ratio of one year can be applied to another year for determining the profit of some of the transactions of another year. 107. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned assessing officer has incorrectly disallowed 25% of the purchases from the alleged bogus parties without finding any evidence and ignoring the sales paid by them to the assessee. Further, the learned CIT - A applied the provisions of section 145 (3) of the income tax act by rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee partially,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) observed that cash deposited in new currency notes amounting to Rs. 63.41 crores, represented cash sales made by the assessee. Thus, in sum, the CIT(A) scaled down the addition made under Section 68 of the Act from Rs. 150.53 crores to Rs. 73.13 crores. The figure of Rs. 73.13 crores was arrived at by adjusting from Rs. 150.53 crores, Rs. 13.99 crores and Rs. 63.41 crores [i.e., (180.53 crores - 30 crores) i.e., 150.53 crores-13.99 crores- 63.41 crores]. 16.5. It is in this background that the Tribunal examined the merits of the case put up by both sides. In this context, the Tribunal analysed the data pertaining to cash sales and cash deposits made in the financial year in issue i.e., FY 2016-2017 (relevant AY 2017-2018), as against FYs 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The analysis made by the Tribunal showed that, in the three financial years, the total cash deposits more or less corresponded with the cash sales. A relevant part of the table extracted in paragraph 126 of the impugned order is set forth hereafter : F.Y.2014-2015 F.Y.2015-2016 F.Y.2016-2017 Cash Sales Cash Deposits Cash Sales Cash Deposits Cash Sales Cash Deposits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age terms, the increase in sales between December 2014 and December 2015 was 337.33%, whereas, in December 2016, cash sales decreased by 28.27%. This again demonstrated, according to the Tribunal, that assessee had not attempted to book cash sales that had not taken place, as alleged by the revenue. 16.9. In sum, it was the Tribunal's assessment of the material placed on record that cash deposits made by the assessee with its bankers, as noticed above, more or less compared with the cash sale transactions entered into by it with its customers. The Tribunal's view was that given the fact that there was no allegation made by the revenue that the assessee had backdated its entries to enhance its cash sale figures, one could only conclude that there was a growth in the assessee's business. 17. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that one of the reasons furnished by the A.O., in support of the impugned addition, was that physical stock was short by Rs. 450 crores. In other words, the stock register represented a higher figure, as against that which was found physically. This conclusion arrived at by the A.O. was found by the Tribunal to be erroneous, inasmuch as the A.O. had f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he book stock found by the search party were shown to us, which suggested that there is a shortage of stock after considering stock lying at Sonipat." 17.1. The Tribunal also seems to have accepted the explanation that the gross profit ratio for the AY in issue i.e., AY 2017-2018 (relevant F.Y.20162017) was in line with the earlier years. In this context, the Tribunal took note of the fact that, at the time when the search and seizure action had taken place, the data had not been finalized as adjustments towards depreciation, interest and provisions for expenses could be made only after the end of the relevant financial year. 17.2. Besides this, the Tribunal also appears to have accepted the explanation given by the assessee that the purported misalignment of the gross profit ratio occurred, as unaudited data of the year in issue was compared with the audited data of the previous years. It is in this context that the Tribunal took note of the gross profit percentage of AYs 2015-2016 (6.14%), 2016-2017 (4.19%) and 2017-2018 (5.85%), as also the respective net profit ratio for the very same years, which, according to the assessee, were 0.72% 0.81% and 1.35% respectively. The se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y cash sales. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly found in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition made by CIT(A) of Rs. 73.13 crores, under Section 68 of the Act. 18. Before we conclude let us deal with the submissions advanced by Mr Sharma in the context of the three issues discussed The submission made by Mr Sharma that because there was a huge variation in the share premium i.e., the rate at which share premium was paid by the investor entities and the rate at which it was sold, and therefore addition concerning amount received as share capital/ share premium, should be sustained, is not tenable. The answer, to our minds, lies in what has been held by the Tribunal, which is, that at the end of the day it was found that it was the assessee's own money, which had been routed through the investor entities. As indicated above, as a matter of fact, in AY 2012-2013, addition on this account was sought to be made by the A.O., which was deleted by CIT(A) in appeal. The revenue, for reasons best known, did not carry the matter in appeal. 18.1. We agree with the Tribunal, as observed above, that since no incriminating material was found qua AYs 2012-2013 to 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d person i.e., Mr Praveen Agarwal was examined by the A.O. in the assessment proceedings concerning the assessee. Nothing was shown to us, which could establish that the A.O. conducted an independent enquiry to test the veracity of the statement made by Mr Praveen Agarwal. 18.3. Therefore, given the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that no cognizance can be taken of the statement made by Mr Praveen Agarwal. 18.4. As regards Mr Sharmas's contention that although the Tribunal has relied upon the deviation report in support of certain conclusions arrived at by it, it has ignored certain other parts of the deviation report. For instance, reference is made to the fact that the deviation report prepared by the A.O. concluded that the assessee had introduced unaccounted cash to the extent of Rs. 99.04 crores, which is liable to be added to its total income for AY 20172018. We have already discussed this aspect at length in the earlier part of the judgment. Suffice it to reiterate that the assessee's explanation that the banks had advised deposit of money in tranches, does not appear to be unreasonable. 18.5. Besides this, as noticed above, the Tribunal, after a detaile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion(s) of law arose for our consideration. 19.1. The result of the appeals filed before the Tribunal was turned on appreciation of evidence placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. We have not been able to conclude that the findings returned by the Tribunal are perverse. Importantly, neither in the grounds nor in the questions of law as suggested in the appeals, the revenue has averred that the findings of the Tribunal are "perverse". This fact imposes a limitation on this court while entertaining an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. In a nutshell, this court cannot revaluate the findings of fact returned by the Tribunal, except on the limited ground of perversity/complete lack of evidence. [See K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT, (2001) 1 SCC 1358.] 19.2. As has been, repeatedly, noted hereinabove, and as is also observed by the Tribunal, the A.O. shifted his position vis-à-vis the assessee. This is clearly evident if one were to compare the deviation report prepared by the A.O. (pursuant to the submission of the appraisal report by the investigation wing) with the assessment order(s) framed by him. 19.3. It is disconcerting to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by any transfer of title from Suppan Chettiar. It is true that the only evidence on record which enables the sons of Suppan Chettiar to claim his share is the letter already referred to. It is always open to any partner to retire from the firm yielding his place to his nominee or nominees. If all the other partners of the firm agree to this retirement and substitution of the new partner or partners, a new partnership springs into existence. The absence of any valid document of transfer from Suppan Chettiar to his sons, we do not say that the letter of Suppan Chettiar is not enough, cannot really affect the question whether the sons of Suppan Chettiar became partners of the new partnership each holding 1/48 share. The terms of the partnership deed dated 23rd November, 1955, do not indicate that the sons of Suppan Chettiar were mere dummies either for the other partners or for Suppan Chettiar, who was not eo nomine a partner. The formation and constitution of a partnership can in no way be affected by the fact that one of the partners is a benamidar for a stranger or that a partner holds his share as a manager of his joint family, or that a partner has agreed to give a portion o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecting his liability to taxation by legal means available to him but for the purpose of avoiding taxation, the court will uphold the changes unless it is satisfied that the changes are not actual, but merely simulated. The question is not whether the motive for the transaction was proper or otherwise but whether what the taxpayer has done actually accomplishes the result anticipated...." 6. "13. Section 68 of the Act deals with cash credits. As per Section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. Simply put, the section provides that if there is any cash credit disclosed by the assessee in his return of income for the previous year under consideration and the assessee offers no explanation for the same or if the assessee offers explanation which the Assessing Officer finds to be not satisfactory, then the said amount is to be added to the income of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn of income in the garb of share application money was money from unexplained source and added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 18. In the first appellate proceedings, it was held that assessee had produced sufficient evidence in support of proof of identity of the creditors and confirmation of transactions by many documents, such as, share application form etc. First appellate authority also noted that there was no requirement under section 68 of the Act to explain source of source. It was not necessary that share application money should be invested out of taxable income only. It may be brought out of borrowed funds....... xxx xxx xxx 21......... Though, assessee was not required to prove source of the source, nonetheless, Tribunal took the view that Assessing Officer had made inquiries through the investigation wing of the department at Kolkata and collected all the materials which proved source of the source. 22. In NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion a higher authority can interfere with the independence which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process." 9. "5. The respondent then filed a Letters Patent Appeal. By this time the decision of this Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [AIR 1964 SC 1573 : (1964) 7 SCR 1 : (1964) 2 SCJ 570.] had been rendered and by that decision GO No. 1298 dated April 28, 1956, which was the previous direction issued by the State Government under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was set aside. It was held that it was legitimate to assume that the Legislature intended to respect the basic and elementary postulate of the rule of law that in exercising their authority and discharging their quasi-judicial functions, the tribunals constituted under the Act must be left absolutely free to deal with the matter according to their best judgment guided only by the statutory light. It was pointed out that it was of the essence of fair and objective administration of law that the decision of judges or tribunals must be absolutely unfettered by any extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the State. It was true th....