Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

B. Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (Madras High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 12, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-2002 to 2007-2008
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Admission of undisclosed income by assessee constitutes good evidence. Loose sheets found during search can be relied upon

(i) With regard to the undisclosed income of Rs.52,73,920/- supported by printouts, in the sworn statement dated 29.8.2006, the assessee says that he had separate business income which was not included in his income tax returns. Therefore, admission of undisclosed income of Rs.52,73,920/- is categoric and undisputed. When there is a clear and categoric admission of the undisclosed income by the assessee himself, there is no necessity to scrutinize the documents. The document can be of some relevance, if the undisclosed income is determined higher than what is now determined by the department. Moreover, it is not the case of the assessee that the admission made by him was incorrect or there is mistake. In fact, when there is a clear admission, voluntarily made, by the assessee, that would constitute a good piece of evidence for the Revenue.

(ii) The assessee relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Girish Chaudhary, [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed income. However, in the case on hand, loose sheets found during the search are not the sole basis for determining the tax liability. It is a piece of evidence to prove undisclosed income. The printout statements of undisclosed income is not disputed by the assessee and in his sworn statements it is accepted. The entire exercise by the department to bring to tax undisclosed income, we find has been generous and simple. There appears to be no confusion in the quantification of the tax liability and we uphold the order of the Tribunal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*