2011 (11) TMI 489 - HC - Income Tax

Block assessment - Search and seizure - two documents seized during search - case referred to DVO - Held that - Apart from these two documents, there are no other material found during search and the un-disclosure of income had to be considered only with reference to said two documents with reference to the expenses disclosed in the returns. Therefore, the assessing officer was not at all justified in passing the order of his assessment on the basis of DVOs report and adding some more amount on his own to the said valuation made by the DVO, which was as on the date of inspection of the premises constructed by the assessee. Thus the finding of the appellate authority and the ITAT that the assessment made under Chapter 14B is not based upon the material seized during search is justified and no other conclusion could have been arrived at having regard to the documents seized during search - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Addition of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer.
3. Appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
4. Appeal before the ITAT.
5. Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), where the appeal was dismissed, and the cross objection was allowed. The ITAT found that the addition of undisclosed income was not supported by material found during the search. The assessing officer's valuation was questioned, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the allowance of the cross objection by the assessee.

Issue 2: Addition of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer

The Assessing Officer, after a search and seizure operation, initiated proceedings under Section 14-B of the Income-tax Act. The officer assessed the undisclosed income based on documents seized during the search, including an agreement with a contractor and a letter to a financial institution. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later held that the addition of undisclosed income was not sustainable as it was not solely based on seized material. The ITAT upheld this decision, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the grounds raised by the assessee and concluded that the addition of undisclosed income could not be sustained. The Commissioner set aside the assessing officer's order, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT. The Commissioner's decision was based on the lack of substantial material found during the search to support the addition of undisclosed income.

Issue 4: Appeal before the ITAT

The ITAT upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the assessing officer's addition of undisclosed income was not adequately supported by the material seized during the search. The ITAT confirmed that the cross objection filed by the assessee aligned with the Commissioner's findings. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the filing of the present appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 5: Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal

The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal included the applicability of specific provisions of the Income-tax Act and the requirement for the Assessing Officer to have material found during the search to invoke certain provisions. The arguments presented by both parties revolved around the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents set by various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the High Court analyzed the facts in light of legal principles and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.

---