itl5.07.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. Rajesh Gupta, Kalamna, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 6 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. Shantidevi Gupta, Kalamna, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 9 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. Adesh Gupta, Kalamna, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT itl5.07.odt 2 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 13 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Kalamna, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 26 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. Suresh Gupta, Kalamna, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 29 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. Rajendra Gupta, Kalamna, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellants, Shri C.J. Thakar, Advocate for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 24 th SEPTEMBER, 2010 itl5.07.odt 3 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents in all these appeals belong to Rameshwarprasad Gupta family. On 12th November, 1999 there was a search operation at the business and residential premises belonging to the Gupta family. During the course of search, incriminating documents, such as loose papers, diaries etc. were found. On the basis of the documents seized, notices under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act were issued to all the family members on or about 12th May, 2000. Pursuant to the notices, the family members of the Gupta family filed block returns disclosing the undisclosed income in the case of Rajesh Gupta to the tune of Rs.66,160/-, Adesh Gupta Rs.97,140/-, Dinesh Gupta Rs.1,86,323/-. Along with the return, the capital accounts of various members of the Gupta family were also filed. The Assessing Officer on verification of the capital accounts held that the capital accounts are prepared as an afterthought so as to suit the investments and expenditure and therefore, the said capital accounts cannot be relied upon. The Assessing Officer further on the basis of seized documents held that the investments and expenditure and source thereof have not been explained and accordingly made additions of those amounts as undisclosed itl5.07.odt 4 income in the respective hands of the family members of the Gupta family. 3. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT(A)) partly allowed the appeal. He estimated the agricultural income in the case of Rameshwarprasad Gupta and Shantidevi Gupta and gave credit for the same to the extent stated in the order. The CIT(A) was of the view that the documents having been found from Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, the presumption under Section 132(4A) applied and therefore, unexplained investments and expenditure should be added in the case of Rameshwarprasad Gupta. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), both the Revenue as well as the assessees filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 24th March, 2006 the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessees and dismissed the department's appeal. 5. The grievance of the Revenue in all these appeals is that the Tribunal was not justified in passing a common order in respect of various assessees in the Gupta family and the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the additions made in the hands of each of the assessees as undisclosed income of the respective itl5.07.odt 5 assessees. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Gupta family was a joint family having income from agricultural lands and business. In the present case, the source of income and the quantum of income determined by the Tribunal is not disputed by the revenue. Since the income is computed at Rs.38,41,291/-, the Tribunal calculated that the investments and expenditure to the extent of Rs.31,11,118/- from the said income is probable and accordingly deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in taking overall view of the matter and holding that in the facts of the present case the investments/expenditure cannot be attributed any one individual cannot be faulted. In the absence of any challenge to the source of income and in the absence of any challenge to the computation of total income of the members of Gupta family, the grievance of the revenue that the investments/expenditure have not been explained could not be sustained. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma