Umar Farooqui vs Commissioner of Income Tax

In this appeal, following questions are proposed stating that these questions involved substantial questions of law :

"Whether the notice issued u/s 158BC of the IT Act of 1961 by the AO in the present case to file the return ''within 15 days'' does not violates the provision of Section 158BC which requires the notice of ''not being less than 15 days'' implying clear 15 days and whether the assessment framed on the basis of such illegal notice is not bad in law despite of filing of return by the assessee as estoppel has no place in statute and illegality cannot be waived even by the acquiescence of the assessee ?"

"Whether learned Tribunal was justified in considering the amount of Rs. 11,074 and Rs. 30,109 as undisclosed income u/s 158BB of the IT Act of 1961 r/w Section 158B(b) of the same Act particularly after the retrospective amendment in Section 158BB(1)(c) in respect of the sources which are not undisclosed being regular business profit and interest income ?"

"Whether, in absence of any evidence envisaged in Section 158BB and in view of the definition of undisclosed income contained in Section 158B(b), and the jurisdictional High Court decision, the addition of an estimated amount of Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 69 of the Act of 1961, is justified particularly in case of requisition u/s 132A of the IT Act of 1961 ?"

"Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the definition of undisclosed income contained in Section 158B(b) the addition to the extent of Rs. 50,000 on account of marriage expenses in the case of requisition u/s 132A of the IT Act of 1961, merely on the basis of presumption and estimation, without any evidence and by wrongly casting the burden u/s 69C of the Act on the assesses is not bad in law ?"

Question No. 1 relates to the notice whether notice issued u/s 158BC is illegal.

The Tribunal has dealt with this question in para. 13 of its order. No such notice was even produced before the Tribunal. Without notice being produced, the Tribunal has justification not to allow the claim of the assessee that notice is illegal.

Question No. 2 involves the issue whether Tribunal was justified in considering the amount of Rs. 11,074 and Rs. 30,109 as undisclosed income u/s 158BB.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the income was below taxable limit, that cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

No such issue has been raised before the Tribunal. We cannot go into that question of fact at this stage. Therefore, the issue involved in the question proposed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.

Question No. 3 relates to the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 u/s 69C.

Admittedly the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts. He is a partner in one firm and proprietor of one of the firms. Considering the line of business and status of the assessee, whether addition was justified or not is a question of fact. No question of law does arise in the question proposed.

In question No. 4, the issue involved is regarding addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of marriage.

Considering the source of income of the assessee and status, whether that addition is justified or not, that is also a question of fact. No substantial question of law does arise in the question proposed.

We are also of the view that finding of Tribunal on facts is not perverse. The appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.