REDDY SATYAVATHI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not uncommon that the anxiety to be law abiding exhibited by a citizen, turns out to be counter productive and lands him in trouble. That exactly happened in the instant case. The appellant in all these appeals is an assessee since a very long time. She hails from a rich and reputed family, and was married to a doctor, who commanded a fairly good practice at Nidadavolu. She filed the returns for the assessment years 1982 - 83 to 1988 -89 showing not only the income in the form of profits that fell to her share in the partnership business, but also the one, from agriculture. Orders of assessment were passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, (for short, the Act) and the matter ended at that.

(2.) ON 30.03.1989, the appellant filed revised returns covering the period 1982 -83 to 1988 -89, disclosing the extra income from money lending business and receipt of gifts. She has also mentioned that certain items of the properties were purchased from the money derived from those two sources. The Assessing Officer, who processed the returns, did not agree with the plea of the appellant and treated the entire amount mentioned in the revised returns, as unexplained investment. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed 7 appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals were disposed of in 2 batches. The first set covered assessment years 1982 -83 to 1986 -87 and the second set covered 1987 -88 and 1988 -89. In both the orders, the plea of the appellant as to the income from the money lending business was accepted. However, one relation to gifts covering four assessment years, was rejected. The department filed 7 appeals before the Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate authority. The appellant, on the other hand, filed 4 appeals insofar as the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea in relation to gifts. All the 11 appeals were heard together by the Tribunal. Through a common order dated 19.04.2000, the Tribunal allowed the appeals preferred by the department and dismissed those filed by the appellant. Hence, these appeals under Section 260A of the Act.

(3.) SRI A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal failed to take into account, two important factors viz., that the appellant herself filed the revised returns covering 7 assessment years and that she has adequate sources to start money lending business. He further submits that the resources of the family of the appellant are such that giving and taking of gifts is a matter of course and that, she sold some of the golden ornaments to mobilise resources for purchasing the properties. He contends that the Tribunal proceeded in a hyper - technical manner and has undertaken minute verification of the things, as though it is a case where search was conducted or the assessments were reopened on discovery of the undisclosed income. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once the appellant pleaded that she has undertaken money lending business, heavy burden rested upon her to show the sources of income and that she miserably failed in this behalf. He contends that the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal have analysed the matter thoroughly and, on being satisfied that the attempt made by the appellant was only to legalise what she has acquired contrary to law, passed appropriate orders. He submits that the Tribunal has referred to several decided cases in support of its conclusion and that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, in this batch of appeals. Not even a semblance of doubt was expressed in relation to the regular returns submitted by the appellant for the 7 assessment years referred to above, much less any proceedings were initiated under Sections 147 or 154 of the Act. That only shows the truthfulness of the returns submitted by the appellant.