Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1249 (PAT)

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shyama Sinha

2008-08-27

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN

body2008
JUDGMENT : Prasad & Ranjan, JJ. Miscellaneous Appeals No. 293, 294 and 295 of 1999 have been directed to be heard on the following common questions of law:- "(a) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the departmental valuer's report summarily, was justified on the basis of hypothetical estimates of unexplained investment of the aforesaid assesses? (b) Whether in absence of any concrete finding and consideration of comparable documents or cases regarding higher or lower purchase price of similar property of the locality of the same period, the Assessing Officer or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were correct in adopting a speculate estimate on mere presumption? (c) Whether in a case of unexplained/undisclosed investment in the property, the assessing authority is required only to take into consideration the purchase price of the property and the cost of addition for development or such estimate is to be made on the basis of Departmental Valuer's Report which was made on rental/yield method of the property? (d) Whether the Assessing Officer or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, without recording a positive finding to the effect that the assesses had made investment or secured valuable property for an amount in excess of the amount recorded in his accounts-book, were justified in considering such amount as the income of the assessee during the financial year?" 2. Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 598 and 601 of 1999 are although admitted by ORDER :dated 31.1.2000 but no question of law had been formulated. 3. When the appeals are taken up for hearing, Mr. K.N. Jain, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents-assessee submits that no substantial question of law arises for determination in all these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone. 4. Mrs. Archana Sinha, appears on behalf of the appellants. 5. It is common ground that all the proceedings are the outcome of the search and seizure conducted in the residential premises of Radha Raman Prasad Sinha, and others at Plot No. 55, Shyama Shawan, Road No. 12, Rajendra Nagar in the town of Patna on 27.9.1996. On 27.9.1996 besides the residential premises of the said Radha Raman Prasad Sinha, the office premises of M/s J.P. Associates Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sarat Associates and Hotel Marina, Fraser Road, Patna were also covered under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. 6. On 27.9.1996 besides the residential premises of the said Radha Raman Prasad Sinha, the office premises of M/s J.P. Associates Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sarat Associates and Hotel Marina, Fraser Road, Patna were also covered under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. 6. ORDER :s in all these appeals have been passed relying on the ORDER :of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Radha Raman Prasad Sinha i.e. ITA No. SS-97/Pat/ 1997. The properties involved in these appeals are the same as those involved in the case of Radha Raman Prasad Sinha. 7. It is not the case of the appellants that it has assailed the ORDER :of the Tribunal passed in the case of said Radha Raman Prasad Sinha. 8. In that view of the matter, the ORDER :passed by, the Tribunal in Radha Raman Prasad Sinha's case has attained finality. As stated earlier all the ORDER :s in these appeals have been filed relying on the JUDGMENT : in the aforesaid case. 9. Having gone though the JUDGMENT : of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the ORDER :s passed are on appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law arises for our decision. 10. Accordingly, we dismiss all the appeals on that count alone, but without any ORDER :as to cost.