TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year 1996-97 - Held that:- Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the subject matter of addition was one that was already declared in the regularly filed return before the search operation and, therefore, this could not be a subject matter of block assessment. Under these circumstances, this addition was not permissible. The CIT (Appeals) also have allowed this deduction on this account alone. The Tribunal while doing so did not consider this aspect properly. Once the capital amounting to ₹ 1,79,019/- was reflected in the original returns filed before the block assessment and there was no reopening of the assessment in accordance with law with regard to the original return filed and assessment ordered, the amount could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filing of the return is not attributable to the assessee and, therefore, interest under Section 158BFA (1) was not chargeable. To that effect also, the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed. - Miscellaneous Appeal No. 535-555 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - Rajendra Menon, CJ And Sudhir Singh, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate JUDGMENT ( Per: Honourable The Chief Justice) In these two appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) challenge are made to a common order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided by a common order. Even though the revenue has not challenged the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has challenged the same. 4. The first ground canvassed in these appeals were that in the final account statements submitted by the assessee for the block period in question, certain amounts as advance receipt for sale of land between the period 1990-2000 and 2002-03 were indicated by the assessee. However, a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- which was received towards advance for sale of the land was included as income of the assessee. Challenge is made to the said addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal having disallowed this addition, learned counsel took us through the findings recorded in paras-2 onwards of the Tribunal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng recorded by the Tribunal as far as this ground is concerned. 7. The next ground canvassed was with regard to addition of a sum of ₹ 1,79,019/- as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1996-97. There being a difference between the opening balance shown in the revised balance sheet and the amount worked out, the same was added as undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) both recorded concurrent findings to say that the assessee has failed to explain the difference by leading cogent evidence and, therefore, the Tribunal upheld this addition. However, while doing so, the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the subject matter of addition was one that was already declared in the regularly filed return befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved as gift from the brother. The concurrent findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal in this regard needs no consideration. To that account also, the appeals stand rejected. 11. The last and the final ground or the substantial question of law would be as to whether the Tribunal was right in directing for payment of interest under Section 158BFA (1) when the CIT (Appeals) had disallowed the interest on cogent reasons. While directing for payment of interest, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that there being delay in filing of the return, interest under Section 158BFA(1) is liable to be charged. However, the learned appellate authority, namely the CIT (Appeals), found that the seized ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
