9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 408 - HC - Income TaxBlock assessment - unexplained source of income from investment in construction, long term capital gains and the one from house property - Tribunal took the view that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Section 158BB(c)(B) - Held that - The assessee has shown the house property income for assessment year 1987-88 till date of survey on 10.10.1996 which are below taxable limit. While relying on the decisions of CIT Versus MM Thomas 2003 (3) TMI 37 - KERALA High Court we direct to exclude the income in a block assessment years which is below taxable limit, the rental income is on records of the Revenue. Since the effect of the decision (2001 (12) TMI 53 - KERALA High Court ) is nullified by amendment in introducing Section 158BB(1)(c)(B) to the Act. This observation should have led to a conclusion that the refusal on the part of the Assessing Officer to take into account the facts and figures mentioned with reference to the block period cannot be sustained in law and the order of assessment ought to have been set aside or at least modified. However, the appeal was dismissed as a whole. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Block assessment proceedings under Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act. 2. Computation of undisclosed income for the block period. 3. Entitlement to benefit under Section 158BB(c)(B) of the Act. 4. Discrepancies in the assessment order and the explanation provided by the appellant. 5. Validity of the Tribunal's decision in dismissing the appeal. Block Assessment Proceedings under Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act: The case involved block assessment proceedings under Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, who had income from house property, agriculture, and transport business, had stopped filing returns after transferring the business to his son. A search was conducted, leading to a notice under Section 158BC of the Act. The Assessing Officer found undisclosed income, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal and subsequently to the High Court. Computation of Undisclosed Income for the Block Period: The appellant did not file returns for over ten years before the search. However, he provided a cash flow statement during the search, showing income from agriculture and house property below taxable limits. The Tribunal did not dispute this statement. Section 158BB of the Act outlines the procedure for computing undisclosed income, considering various components. The Tribunal's failure to address the appellant's explanation raised concerns about the assessment's validity. Entitlement to Benefit under Section 158BB(c)(B) of the Act: Section 158BB(c)(B) requires considering entries in books of account even if no returns were filed for the block period. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submissions but did not fully incorporate them into the assessment. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision did not align with the appellant's explanation, indicating a potential error in dismissing the appeal. Discrepancies in the Assessment Order and Appellant's Explanation: The High Court observed that the Assessing Officer's refusal to consider the appellant's documented income sources for the block period was unjustified. The Tribunal's acknowledgment of the appellant's income sources should have resulted in a modification or setting aside of the assessment order. The High Court found the assessment order to be legally flawed and set it aside. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision in Dismissing the Appeal: The High Court concluded that the dismissal of the appeal did not match the reasoning provided during the discussion. It found that the appellant had adequately explained the source of income, rendering the block assessment order incorrect. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the assessment order, and directed no costs to be imposed. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the procedural aspects, and the court's findings regarding the appellant's undisclosed income and the validity of the assessment order.
|
