Case: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rekha Bai

1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated December 14, 20051, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court has dismissed the appeal filed Under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that no substantial question of law arises. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the full value of the pronotes seized at the time of survey should have been taken into account and there was no question of taking only 30 per cent of the face value as the amount representing is disclosed income.2. From the order of the first appellate authority, we find that the Assessing Officer had examined some of the borrowers mentioned in the pro-notes and they have categorically stated that the amount advanced is 50 per cent, or less which explanation has been accepted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal.3. The Department has failed to bring on record any material to the contrary except the seized documents which, in our considered opinion, could not absolve the Department or give any right to negate the view taken by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. So far as the income divided among the family members of the Respondent-Assessee is concerned we find that all of them were carrying on same business from the same premises. Therefore, it is but natural that if any concealed income has been found at the time of search and survey, it has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]2. From the order of the first appellate authority, we find that the Assessing Officer had examined some of the borrowers mentioned in the pro-notes and they have categorically stated that the amount advanced is 50 per cent, or less which explanation has been accepted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal3. The Department has failed to bring on record any material to the contrary except the seized documents which, in our considered opinion, could not absolve the Department or give any right to negate the view taken by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. So far as the income divided among the family members of the Respondent-Assessee is concerned we find that all of them were carrying on same business from the same premises. Therefore, it is but natural that if any concealed income has been found at the time of search and survey, it has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business.