Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
(S. Thapar) (Madhu Saxena)
PS to Registrar Court Master
The signed order is placed on the file.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2437 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.31545 of 2008)
Leave granted.
In this case the grievance made by the appellant (assessee) is that although the
High Court had specifically formulated the following question, quoted hereinbelow, it has
failed to answer the said question which reads as follows:
“Whether the amount allegedly paid by the purchasers on different
dates to the managing partners of the Firm could be brought to tax in
the hands of the appellant-Firm.”
We find merit in this contention. However, we find from the impugned
judgment that there was another question, besides the question quoted hereinabove, which
has been remanded by the High Court to the A.O. [See: para ‘8’ of the impugned
judgment]. Therefore, in our opinion the above-quoted question is also being remanded to
the A.O. for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In short, the above question, in
addition to the question remanded by the High Court, is also being remitted to the A.O.
Before concluding, one aspect needs to be highlighted. As can be seen from the
impugned judgment, vide para ‘7’, the entire unaccounted money stood taxed by the
Department in the assessment year 1993-94 which, according to the impugned judgment,
was erroneous, therefore, it has been held by the High Court that the matter needs to be
remitted to the A.O. to ascertain whether Rs.2,32,28,173/- was received by the partners of
the appellant-Firm during the assessment year 1993-94 or not and based on such finding
the High Court directed the A.O. to complete the assessment. In this case there was a
search during which certain incriminating material was found. Therefore, it has been
rightly held by the High Court that it is for the appellant-Firm and its partners to explain
and produce relevant documents before the A.O. to show as to when and how the
aforestated amount was received by them. The High Court further rightly held that if the
partners of the appellant-Firm are unable to produce any material evidence, then it would
be open to the A.O. to complete the assessment treating the above amount to have been
received by the partners during the assessment year 1993-94 only. Lastly, the High Court
specifically held that in view of the above direction, appellant (assessee) shall not raise any
question of limitation.
We have carefully gone through para ‘7’ of the impugned judgment. We find no
infirmity in para ‘7’. Therefore, it would not be open for the appellant to raise the question
of limitation in this case before the A.O.
Subject to above, the civil appeal accordingly stands disposed of with no order as
to costs.
April 09, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ]