Case Law Details
Smt. R. Santha Vs CIT (Madras High Court)
There can be no allegation against the assessee of diversion assessee and her husband, who had established the dhall mill and that the assesee is at an advantage in obtaining finished product from her husband’s dhall mill and she will be assured of time delivery of the processed dhall and assured of quality processing and obviously at discounted rates. Furthermore, there is no endeavour made by the Tribunal to examine the specific stand of the assessee that the assessee had interest free funds.
Thus, we find that CIT(A) decided the case against the assessee based on its own personal opinion without any material available on record. Therefore, we hold that the finding rendered by the CIT(A) is perverse. This perverse finding affirmed by the Tribunal was without any material placed before it to come to a conclusion that the role played by the assessee’s husband as a miller is virtually insignificant. Decisions have to be taken based on the return of income filed by the assessee and the documents that may be called for by the Assessing Officer. There is no room for the authority to incorporate their personal opinion while completing the assessment, which precisely was done by the CIT(A) and therefore, has to necessarily held to be perverse and unsustainable. In fact, the assessee’s husband stood as a guarantor to the assessee for obtaining cash credit facility was not disbelieved. The CIT(A) rejects it by stating that the value of the property was not equal to that of the amount borrowed. This is not the concern of the CIT(A), it is for the bank, which extended the loan to be worried about the adequacy of the security offered by the borrower. In any event, the assessee’s husband stood as a guarantor for the loan transaction making him jointly and severally liable along with the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is directed against the order dated 16.04.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai ‘B’ Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1499/Mds/2005 for the Assessment Year 2001-02.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
