9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 158BD was issued to the assessee on December 12, 2002. Since the block period was wrongly mentioned in the said notice as "April 1, 1996 to June 18, 2002", a corrigendum was issued on August 8, 2003 correcting the block period as "April 1, 1996 to May 28, 2002". The dated May 28, 2002 is the date of commencement of the search and the dated June 18, 2002 is the date of conclusion of search. The assessee filed her block return on June 19, 2003 declaring an undisclosed income of Rs. 11,90,580. The assessee also filed cash flow statements explaining various investments. The assessee had filed her regular returns of income relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 prior to the date of search. The returns of income relating to the assessment years 2002-03 was filed subsequent to the date of search. The Assessing Officer determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 29,05,113 in the block assessment proceeding by making various additions. The assessee challenged the said additions before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and got partial relief. Hence, both parties are in appeal before us on the issues decided against each of them. We shall take up the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The next issue relates to the addition of Rs. 89,192 relating to chitty receipts. The assessee had shown the abovesaid chitty receipts in the cash flow relating to the year ending March 31, 1999. The Assessing Officer treated the same as the undisclosed income of the assessee on the ground that no evidence was produced to prove the said receipt. However, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noticed that the assessee had declared the chit fund contributions and the receipts in her capital account filed along with the return of income filed for the assessment year 1999-2000. Since the relevant chitty transactions have already been dis closed to the Department prior to the date of search, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting this addition. The next issue relates to the enhancement of relief relating to marriage gifts by Rs. 1 lakh. In the cash flow statement filed for the year ending March 31, 2002, the assessee had shown gift receipts to the tune of Rs.4,77,500 on the occasion of marriage of her daughter named Smt. Divya. The Assessing Officer consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest accrued on the deposits made by her in those returns. Since the returns of income referred to the above were filed after the date of search, the interest income declared therein amounting to Rs. 1,97,713 was treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the said addition by following the decisions in the case of CIT v. Nitin Munje [2003] 264 ITR 628 (MP) and Amarnath Aggarwal v. Deputy CIT [2000] 67 TTJ (Delhi) 551. We notice that the assessee had been regularly declaring the interest accrued on deposits even in the returns of income filed prior to the date of search, meaning thereby, the relevant deposits stand already disclosed to the Department. In that factual situation, in our view, the Assessing Officer cannot consider the interest accrued during the year ending March 31, 2002 and also from April 1, 2002 to May 28, 2002 solely on the ground that the returns of income for the above said periods were filed subsequent to the date of search. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned Com missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue. The next issue relates to the addition of Rs. 14,82,089 perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of Rs.14,23,024 pertaining to the subscriptions made in Gokulam Chitty. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that these chitties were subscribed by M/s. Sabarigiri Trust and they have been reflected in its books of account. However, the Assessing Officer noticed that the trust account did not contain the chitty account number and accordingly held that the impugned subscriptions could not be correlated in the absence of the account numbers. Accordingly he made an addition of Rs. 14,23,024 relating to chitty subscriptions. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed evidences in support of her claim that these chitties belong to M/s. Sabarigiri Trust. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and recomputed the addition after exclud ing the chitties which were already disclosed either by the assessee or her husband or the trust. Before us, the Department is contending that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, which he is not entitled to do. There cannot be any dispute tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
