TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to interfere into the findings returned by the Assessing Officer - Decided against assessee. - I.T. (SS) A. No. 02/Del/2012, I.T.(SS) A No.05/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - Shri G. D. Agarwal, Hon ble Vice President And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Vinod Kr. Bindal Ms. Sweety Kothari, CA For the Respondent : Sh. Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DR ORDER Per Kuldip Singh, JM Since common question for determination has been raised in both the aforesaid appeals, the same are being disposed of by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. The appellants, Shilpi Securities Pvt. Ltd., and Vaidahi Lease and Finance Pvt. Ltd., E-10, Sector 15, NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as the assessees ) by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders both dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer, New Delhi for the block assessment period from 01.04.1986 to 27.06.1996 on the grounds inter alia that: A. IT(SS)A No.02/Del/2012: 1. The assessing officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition of ₹ 8,93,034/- being interest on NCD with Citibank ignoring the facts and evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thereafter, pursuant to notice u/s 158BC, the assessments were completed on 30.09.1997 at an undisclosed income of ₹ 1,28,93,034/- and ₹ 8,96,459/- respectively against the retuned undisclosed income of Rs. nil . 4. The assessees challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer before ITAT, New Delhi, which has declared the assessment proceedings void ab- initio and consequently, the Revenue preferred an appeal before Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi and then, Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi vide order dated 31.10.2007, restored the appeals to ITAT, Delhi benches, New Delhi for deciding afresh. Then ITATA, New Delhi vide order dated 30.04.2008 held the block assessment invalid because of the illegality in the warrant issued u/s 132(1), which had again been challenged before Hon'ble High Court, which has passed order dated 30.11.2009 reversing the decision of ITAT and restoring back the appeals to the ITAT, Delhi Benches, New Delhi for decision on merit. Then ITAT, New Delhi Bench A vide order dated 23.07.2010 allowed the appeal and restored the file to the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same in the light of observations in case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer and thereby assessed the undisclosed income of ₹ 8,93,034/- qua the Assessment Year 1997-98. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the assessees have again come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 9. We have heard Authorized representatives of both the sides and perused the material placed on record in the light of orders of tax authorities below and facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Grounds No.1 and 2 of I.T.(SS) A. No.02 05/Del/2012: Initially, notice u/s 158BC of the Act was issued on 07.04.1997 and assessment u/s 158BC(c) of the Act was completed on 30.09.1997 at undisclosed income of ₹ 1,28,93,034/- against retuned undisclosed income of Rs. nil . 10.1 In the second round of litigation, amount of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- credited in the assessee s account No.0-412419-004 maintained with Citi Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi from the current account No.612 of Shri, Anil Sanghi and Associates in J K Bank, NOIDA out of the amount of ₹ 27,64,93,670/- declared by Anil Sanghi as his undisclosed income for the block period offered for taxation by him, has not been declared as undisclosed income. 10.2 However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of time stands disclosed to the Revenue by the assessee. When the creditors pay interest and deduct tax at source and show the payment in their books of account as well as the returns filed the income due to the assessee stands disclosed to the Department. Similarly, when the firm pays remuneration in terms of the agreement to its partner and reflects in the books of account as well as in the return filed to the Department well in time, the income stands disclosed to the Department. Therefore, merely because the recipient of the income did not file the return and he filed only after the search makes no difference. 12. The ratio of judgements cited as Dr. (Mrs.) Surjit Tosaria Vs. JCIT and CIT and Another Vs H. E. Mynuddin Pasha (supra) clearly establish that when admissible tax at source has already been deducted by the bank from the interest income, though the said interest income has not been shown by the assessee in the return filed for the year falling in the block period, the interest income cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the block period. In the case at hand, when undisputedly, addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of entries in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
