Case Law Details
Thiru S.Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT (High Court Madras)
The entire issue revolves around the factual matrix as to whether the slips, which contain certain details, were pertaining to payments made by the assessee, not brought into the books of accounts. Before the assessing Officer, the assessee has given more than one statement accepting the on-money payment. For the first time, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee took a stand that the slips are only dumb sheets and there was no connection with the purchasing of residential property and further, the assessee sought to explain the notings to mean as monthly instalments and arranging of funds and not for payment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after considering the said statement, has given reasons as to why the statements of the assessee are not tenable. In fact, the assessee in no uncertain terms has accepted in his statement that the slip represents payment made for the purchase of property in question. The retraction is vague and a clear afterthought. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly considered the effect of the notings as well as the statement given by the assessee, wherein he had accepted the on-money payment. Once again before the Tribunal, the attempt of the assessee was to wriggle out of the entries in the slips by stating that they have no corroboration with that of the purchase of the immovable property.
The argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that there should be corroborative evidence to sustain the entries to link the same and treat it as an un-explained investment to bring the case under Section 69 of the Act. In our considered view nothing more is required than the facts, which were considered by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The notings are clear and it is not any scribbling, which shows the figures and also shows whether the payments were in cash or in cheque. The retraction made by the assessee, after a period of two years, was rightly rejected as an afterthought.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
This Appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity), is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-C Bench (the ‘Tribunal’ for brevity) in I.T.(SS)A No.65/Mds/2006, for the Block Period 1991-92 to 2000-01 upto 19.01.2001.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
