TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - confirming the addition of ₹ 13 lakhs being unexplained investment; - confirming the addition of ₹ 2.80 lakhs being unexplained investment in the construction of boundary wall and borewell; (3) confirming the addition of ₹ 13.4 lakhs being short term capital gains on sale of Santej land; - confirming the addition of ₹ 58.55 lakhs being undisclosed capital gain on account of payments to M/s. Maruti Construction. 3. The assessee s nature of business is manufacturing and trading of utensils and related products. There was a search and seizure operation in the office premises of the assessee which started on 8.12.1998 and concluded in the month of February, 1999 and, according to the Revenue, several incriminating documents were unearthed. In compliance to a notice u/s 158BC of the Act dated 31.5.2000, the assessee furnished a return of undisclosed income for the block period on 13.11.2000, admitting Nil income. After due consideration of various replies and explanation furnished during the course assessment proceedings and for the detailed reasons recorded in his impugned assessment order under dispute, the AO made the following additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10) To appreciate the position correctly, I have also gone through the entire case records of the appellant carefully. I find that after the search in appellant s case, a notice u/s 158BC of I.T. Act 1961 dated 31.5.2000 was served on the appellant on 2.6.2000 whereby it was called upon to file return of income for the block period within 45 days of receipt of the notice. This period of 45 days is the maximum period allowable for filing of return as per clause a(ii) of s.158BC of the Act. There is no provision in I.T. Act which provides for filing of return in response to notice u/s 158BC after a period of 45 days. There is also no provision for filing of a revised return. Thus, the appellant had to file a return by 17.7.2000, if it wanted to file a return which could be considered to be a valid return within the meaning of s.158BC of the Act. However, no return was filed by due date. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued a show-cause notice dated 11.10.2000 asking the appellant as to why prosecution u/s 276CCC of I.T. Act, 1961 should not be initiate for non-filing of return. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 7.11.2000 was served on 10.11.2000 by which the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s 142(1) of the Act as provided in clause (b) of s.158BC. The AO has proceeded with assessment by issuing a notice as discussed earlier. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the AO and procedure adopted by him is correct and as per law. The additional ground taken by the appellant is, therefore, dismissed and AO s order is upheld and confirmed. 5. Agitated with the findings of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come up with the present appeal. 5.1. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. A.R. that the ld. CIT (A) had grossly erred in treating the return of the block period filed by the assessee as non-est in total disregard of the fact that the return was delayed because of the lapses on the part of the AO who failed to furnish the Xerox copies of the seized materials and also failed to distinguish the findings of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Rakesh S Mardia [74 TTJ 836] although in the said case there were identical set of facts and had thereby committed judicial impropriety and erred in law in refusing to follow the order of the Tribunal as held by the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Agrawal Warehousin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bandana Gogoi v. CIT (289 ITR 28 Gau); (ii) J.K. Developers Pvt. Ltd. In IT(SS)A Nos.167 225/Ahd/2003 and (iii) Janak K Kansara in IT (SS)A No.146/Ahd./2003. In this connection, it was submitted that the facts of the present case totally different from the cases of (i) Smt. Bandana Gogoi and (ii) Janak K Kansara mentioned above. A comparison of the main important dates relevant for the assessment is as under: Sl. No. Event In the case of Bandana Gogoi In the case of Janak Kansara In the case of present assessee 1 Date of search F.Y 1997-98 08.12.1998 08.12.1998 2 Date of issue of notice u/s 158BC 20.08.1998 31.05.2000 31.05.2000 3 Date of issue of notice u/s 142(1) Not available 13.11.2000 07.11. 2000 24.11.2000 24.11.2000 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 6.4. After analyzing the issue in depth and for the detailed reasons recorded in his impugned order referred supra, the CIT (A) vouched that there was no illegality in the order passed by the AO and procedure adopted by him was correct and as per law. 6.5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. A R and also perused the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) on the issue. As rightly highlighted by the ld. CIT (A), after a search conducted in the premises of the assessee, a notice u/s 158BC of the Act dt. 31.5.2000 was slapped on the assessee on 2.6.2000 in which the assessee was required to furnish a return of income for the block period within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. This period of 45 days is the maximum period allowable for filing of a return as per clause a(ii) of s. 158 BC of the Act. As there was no provision in the Act which provides for filing of a return in response notice u/s 158BC of the Act after a lapse of the prescribed date which could be considered as a valid return. However, it is seen that no return of income was furnished by the assessee in consequence to the notice u/s 158BC of the Act within the due date. As could be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
