Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1633
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, A.M. KHANWILKAR, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
P.M. Aboobacker - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5686-5687 of 2017 (@ SLP (C) No. 34550-34551 of 2015)
Decided On : 26-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Mr. Mischal Johari, Ms. Liz Mathew
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the final fact-finding authority to adequately consider all material on record and address the relevant legal provisions, such as Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, in reaching its decision.
Headnote:
Income Tax - Assessment of Liability - Interpretation of Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the orders of the High Court and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the findings in favor of the assessee were overturned on the sole ground of perversity based on new documents filed by the revenue. The appellant contended that the vendor's statement was not recorded at the time of raid as required under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, and that the vendor filed revised returns after the raid, which should absolve the appellant from liability.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the analysis made by the Tribunal and the High Court did not adequately consider the statement recorded under Section 132(4) at the time of search, and did not address the effect of the revised returns filed by the vendor. The Court concluded that the material on record should have been properly considered by the Tribunal, the final fact-finding authority.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the analysis made by the Tribunal and the High Court in considering the statement recorded under Section 132(4) and the effect of the revised returns filed by the vendor.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the inadequacy of the analysis made by the lower courts in considering the material on record, and the failure to address the effect of the revised returns filed by the vendor.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to address all the issues raised and dispose of the appeals within six months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
3. The present appeals by special leave call in question the legal propriety of the orders dated 20th March, 2014 and 2nd June, 2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in ITA No.201 of 2011 and R.P.No.650/2014 respectively.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-appellant that when Commissioner of Income-Tax (A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after analysing the facts had returned findings in favour of the assessee, there was no justification on the part of the High Court to overturn the same on the sole ground of perversity which is founded on the basis of new documents filed by the revenue. It is urged by him that no statement of the vendor of the assessee was recorded at the time of raid as required under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, it is urged by him that the vendor filed revised returns after the raid stating, inter alia, that he had received more money from the purchaser for the land in municipal area in question and on the basis of the said revised returns the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability. Learned counsel would submit that as assessment had been completed and, therefore, it was necessary to send all the materials to the assessing officer at the appropriate time.
5. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue has supported the judgment and order passed by the High Court on the basis of the analysis made by it in para 12 of the impugned judgment. That apart, it is submitted by him that the statement under Section 132(4) was adverted to by the High Court and the Tribunal.
6. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal and that of the High Court it is not clear whether a statement so recorded under Section 132(4) at the time of search was available on record and that apart we do not notice anything or any analysis made by the Tribunal or the High Court with regard to the effect or revised returns filed by the vendor. The findings have been recorded written on the basis of the sworn affidavits in the statement. We are not satisfied with the analysis made by the Tribunal or that by the High Court. In our considered opinion this material on record should have been adverted to by the Tribunal as the final fact finding authority in a proper perspective keeping in view the law in the field.
7. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, we allow these appeals; set aside the orders passed by the High Court in ITA No.201/2011 and R.P.No.650/2014 and that of the Tribunal in ITA No.267/Coch/2009 and remand the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall address all the issues that have been raised at the Bar and dispose of the appeals within six months. Needless to say we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of any of the issues. There shall be no order as to costs.
