Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2006 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 127 - HC - Income TaxValidity Of Additions made in block assessment proceedings - Undisclosed income - search operation u/s 132 - notice u/s 158BC - concealed income u/s 158B - project expenses - HELD THAT:- It is evident from clauses (a) and (b) of section 158BB that in assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B, assessments completed u/s 143 or 144 or 147 cannot be reopened. Consequently, those elements of income which already stand disclosed in the relevant assessment years falling within the block period must be excluded while computing the undisclosed incomes under the Act. It is for this reason that, assessments under Chapter XIV-B have been declared to be in addition, to the regular assessment proceedings for the previous years included in the block period. We find that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have duly considered and appreciated the relevant facts and found that the said additions were liable to be deleted. Their finding is well supported with reasoning and is in accordance with the law as we have discussed hereinabove. We agree with the reason given by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that since there was no evidence found during the search for the Assessing Officer to make the said additions and the relevant expenses/income had been duly reflected and disclosed in the course of the assessment proceedings by the assessee, the same could not be said to be undisclosed income of the assessee and assessed in proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. With regard to deletion of Rs. 1 lakh, as being the amount receivable from M/s. D. S. Imports, the deletion was justified since the addition of Rs. 1 lakh had been confirmed in the case of M/s. Standard Brands. Pertinently the CIT(A) also held that the Assessing Officer would be justified in taking appropriate action in the eventuality of the said amount being deleted from the assessment of M/s. Standard Brands. We also agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal with regard to deletion of the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs towards estimated unexplained investment in immovable property in proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. The respondent has relied on the proviso to section 142A to contend that it was not open to the Assessing Officer to order valuation of the property by the Departmental Valuation Officer since the assessment was made by the Assessing Officer on March 31, 1999 and the CIT(A) decided the appeal on November 16, 2000. He relies on two decisions of this court in CIT v. Sudhish Kumar [2005 (3) TMI 67 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT v. Manoj Jain [2005 (11) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which we find fully support the respondent's case. Since no valuation could be ordered by the Departmental Valuation Officer, it was much less competent for the Assessing Officer, who is not even an expert, to make an estimation of the value of the property on his own, and that too in proceedings under Chapter XIV-B. Thus, we find that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal and accordingly we dismiss the same.
|