In this Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant challenged the Tribunal's order upholding an addition of Rs.10 crores under Section 68 as the income of the assessee due to lack of satisfactory explanation regarding the source of funds.
The tax case appeal was dismissed; no costs awarded to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 23.2.2016
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN
T.C.A.No.104 of 2016 V.Babu ...Appellant Vs
The Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax, Non Corporate Range-3, Chennai-34. ...Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 21.8.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, for the assessment year 2007-08 made in ITA No.296/Mds/2015 as against the order dated 07/10/2014 on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-V) for the assessment year 2007-08 in GIR NO/PAN AAKPB2530Q and as against the order dated 18/3/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Department in GI.No/PA.No.AAKPB2530Q for the Assessment year 2007-08.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, SC for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent: Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan for Mr.T.Ravikumar
Judgment was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J
The assessee has come up with the above appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Department has discharged its burden of proof has on it under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is correct in law, when admittedly there was no partnership firm by name M/s.Babu and Associates ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the appellant has proved satisfactorily about the credit of the money and consequential transaction with admitted records, can the Department be said to have rebutted the same ? and
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not recording a finding about the existence or non existence of a partnership firm namely M/s.Babu and Associates of which, Mr.C.Karthikeyan claims to be a partner and in which, the appellant was not a partner ?"
"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."
-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Range-3, Ch-34. +1 cc to Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar Advocate sr.11038 +1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar Advocate sr.11107
T.C.A.No.104 of 2016
aa06/04/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the expenditure of Rs.10 crores credited in the books of account was properly enhanced as the income of the assessee.
Whether the Department discharged its burden of proof under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the Tribunal was right in not recording a finding about the existence or non-existence of a partnership firm.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Babu
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Range-3, Chennai-34
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
N.KIRUBAKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
