TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention of the assessees is clearly reflected in so much as she had already filed the return before the date of search - assessee filed their returns, though beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act, but before the date of search on 08.09.1995 - The returns of the income of the assessees were already on the records of the department before the date of search and it cannot be said that the assessees tried not to disclose their incomes from the partnership firm - when section 158BB(3) is read with section 158B(b), which defines undisclosed income, for income to be considered as disclosed income, it should have been disclosed in the return filed by the assessees before the search or requisition – the order of the Tribunal is upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d income received by the assessees from M/s. Patira Packaging. Hence the present appeals are filed on behalf of the revenue. 3. These appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right on facts of the case and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,03,954/- as undisclosed income of the assessee received from M/s. Patira Packaging on the ground that the assessee had filed return for three assessment years and therefore, the said returns were on the record of the Income Tax Department and the said income cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee in view of the provisions of Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Heard Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Desai submitted that in the present case the return filed by the assessees for the assessment years 1989-90, 1991- 92, 1992-93 were filed beyond the prescribed time limit and the assessees has never made any prayer to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for condoning the delay caused in filing returns under section 119 of the Act. In support of his submission, Mr. Desai has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. A.R. Enterprises reported in [2013] 350 ITR 489 wherein it is held that since the assessee had not filed its return of income bythe due date, the Assessing Officer was correct in assuming that the assessee would not have disclosed its total income. 6. Mr. R.K. Patel, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the losses of such previous years, determined,- (a) where assessments under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded, on the basis of such assessments; (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or section 147 but assessments have not been made till the date of search or requisition, on the basis of the income disclosed in such returns; (c) where the due date for filing a return of income has expired but no return of income has been filed, as nil,. (d) where the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under subsection (1) of section 139 has not expired, on the basis of entries relating to such income or transactions as recorded in the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that any undisclosed income had already been disclosed in any return of income filed by the assessee before the commencement of search or of the requisition, as the case may be, shall be on the assessee. (4) For the purpose of assessment under this Chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub- section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment tinder this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
