SINT. B. INDIRA RANI VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
1999 P T D 3033
[229 I T R 226]
[Kerala High Court (India)]
Before V. V. Kamat and K. Narayana Kurup, JJ
Sint. B. INDIRA RANI
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Income-tax Reference No.81 of 1993, decided on 05/11/1996.
Income-tax---
----Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Rectification' of mistakes---Income from undisclosed sources---Tribunal considering facts relating to two years and accepting explanation for one year and rejecting explanation for another-- Findings based on evidence---No error on the face of record---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S 254(2).
In respect of an addition of Rs.47,422 relating to the assessment year 1984-85, the Tribunal took the view that except the vague statement that the monies were from the husband of the assessee and her own mother, there was no explanation regarding its source. Therefore, the Tribunal declinedinterfere with regard to the addition of the said amount. For the assessment, 1 year 1983-84 the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation regarding; amount of Rs3,60,276. The explanation was that this amountthe peak credit found in the business by name D.K.B. & Co. which was leading Abkari contractor in the district; that the assessee's mother, P, was partner of the above firm, and the assessee's father, RB, was in comp), management of the above Abkari firm; that the firm had heavy cash balance and, therefore, on July 3, 1982, when the cash balance was Rs.8,12,247, amount in question drawn from the books of account of D.K.B. & Co. had been deposited by the credit entry in question in her bank account. The Tribunal dismissed an application for rectification in respect of assessment year 1984-85. On a reference:
Held, that the Tribunal had not only dealt with the two assessment years separately, but had also recorded its independent and separate reasons, on the basis of which, the Tribunal had found that the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the amount of Rs.7,60,276 was acceptable and on the other hand beyond a vague statement, there was no explanation with regard to the entry relating to the amount of Rs.47,422 in the same bank account. Thus, there was no incongruity or any kind of error apparent on the face of the record, in the order of the Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1984-85.
Indira Rani (B.) (Smt.) v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 346 (Ker) ref.
C. Kochunni Nair and M.C. Madhavan for the Assessee.
P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner.
JUDGMENT
V.V. KAMAT, J.---The assessee is an individual and gets concerned with the assessment year 1984-85 and that too with regard to the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated December 29, 1992, in Miscellaneous Petition No.16 (Cosh.) of 1992. The question awaiting our answer is as follows:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the order- of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.316 (Cosh.) of 1987 in relation to the assessment year 1984 85?"
It is to be seen as to whether there was any mistake apparent from the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.316 (Cosh.) of 1987, decided on July 6, 1988.
Apart from this Court dealing with the factual position relating to the deletion and the contention of wrong addition of Rs.47,422, an amount which was found credited to the savings of the assessee in S.B. Account No.4823, of the Federal Bank Ltd., Quilon, having been declined to be referred even by this Court in Smt. B. Indira Rani v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 346, as there being no question of law, even on a consideration of the material on record no interference is called for.
Shortly stated the factual matrix is as follows:
The assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 travelled together. The proceedings for 1983-84 related to the credit entry of Rs.7,60,276 in the name of the assessee in Account No.4823 of the Federal Bank Ltd. Quilon. The proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85 also related to an entry of Rs.47,422 and that too in the name of the assessee and also in the Account No.4823 of the Federal Bank Ltd., Quilon.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench, Cochin, decided the two proceedings by two separate judgments delivered on the same day- July 6, 1988.
As far as the question relating to the amount of Rs.47,422 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 (the subject-matter of the present proceedings) was concerned, the Tribunal took the view that except the vague statement that the monies were from the husband of the assessee and her own mother, the Tribunal found that there was no support from any other quarter. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with regard to the addition of the said amount.
At the other end with regard to the assessment year 1983-84 in the context of the credit entry of Rs.7,60,276, which was treated as unexplained, the Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the assessee in regard thereto. The explanation was through the letter, dated March 8, 1986, to the effect that this amount represented the peak credit found in the business by name D.K.B. & Co., which is a leading abkari contractor in the district. The explanation further added that the assessee's mother Ponnamma, is a partner of the above firm, and the assessee's father, Sri R. Bharathan, is in complete management of the above abkari firm. The firm had heavy cash balance and, therefore, on July 3, 1982, when the cash balance was Rs.8,12,247, the amount in question drawn from the books of account of D.K.B. & Co., had been deposited by the credit entry in question in her bank account. The Tribunal accepted the explanation on consideration of the aspect in detail by the separate judgment as stated above.
The petition under section 256(2) of the present assessee with regard to the assessment year 1984-85, as already stated, has been dismissed by this Court.
However, the petitioner-assessee had preferred Miscellaneous Petition No.16(Coch.) of 1992 contending that the two judgments of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 are irreconcilable and are required to be corrected because irreconcilability is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal has referred the question as arising out of the decision in dismissing the said miscellaneous petition.
Our discussion hitherto would show that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not only dealt with the two assessment years separately, but has also recorded its independent and separate reasons on the basis of which the Tribunal has found that the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the amount of Rs.7,60,276 is acceptable and at the other end beyond a vague statement, there is no explanation with regard to the entry relating to the amount of Rs.47,422 in the same bank account of the Federal Bank Ltd., Quilon. Thus, there is Rio incongruity or any kind of error apparent on the face of the record.
For the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
A copy of this Judgment under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders.
M.B.A./3083/FC Reference answered