2014 (5) TMI 596 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Applicability of section 158BB(1)(c) OR section 158BB(1)(ca) of the Act Block assessment u/s 158BC of the Act - Reduction of income shown in belated return Held that - In the notice as well as in the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act, it was clearly mentioned that the AO did not properly examine the computer generated account for the AY 2002-03, which were generated from the C.P.U. seized during the course of the search and seizure operation on 4.9.2002 and do not include the undisclosed income reflected from the said accounts while completing the block assessment order - from the records of the Block proceedings, no indication appears that the issue was discussed with the assessee at any stage of the Block assessment proceedings - filing of the regular return for the AY 2002-03 was within the knowledge of the AO at the time of completing the Block assessment order dated 30.09.2004, but the AO while passing the Block order has failed to take into account the correct position of law the vital issues were not examined by the Tribunal before passing the order thus, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication and the answer to the substantial question of law is not required - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions under Section 158BB(1)(ca) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the block assessment order in relation to the belated return filed by the assessee.
3. Consideration of undisclosed income for the block period based on the return filed beyond the due date.
4. Determination of whether the Tribunal's decision was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 158BB(1)(ca) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The department argued that the income declared in the belated return for the assessment year 2002-03 could not be reduced from the disclosed income for the block period. The department contended that the return was filed beyond the due date, and partial advance tax was paid, making the case fall under Section 158BB(1)(ca). The department sought to set aside the Tribunal's decision and restore the Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 263 of the Act.

2. The validity of the block assessment order was challenged concerning the belated return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03. The Commissioner of Income Tax, through an order under Section 263, rejected the claim of the assessee for the income shown in the belated return. The Tribunal, however, allowed the claim by considering factors such as partial advance tax payment and the filing of the return within the extended time allowed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. The department contended that the block assessment should not have accepted the income shown in the belated return.

3. The consideration of undisclosed income for the block period based on the return filed beyond the due date was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee, emphasizing that proper books of account were maintained, and the return was filed within the extended time allowed under Section 139. The department argued that the income declared in the belated return should be treated as undisclosed income for the block period, as per Section 158BB(1)(ca) of the Act.

4. The Tribunal's decision to allow the claim of the assessee was a key point of contention. The department sought to dismiss the appeal, while the counsel for the assessee justified the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's order was challenged based on the failure to examine vital issues raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which led to the setting aside of the impugned order. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh order after considering the overlooked issues and providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.