2010 (1) TMI 214 - HC - Income Tax

Search and Seizure- A search was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on January 22 2003. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2002-03 only on March 12 2004. After giving credit for tax deducted at source advance tax and self assessment tax the Assessing officer treated the balance as undisclosed income. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount could not be treated as undisclosed income and this was upheld by the Tribunal. Held that- amount shown in the return could not be treated as undisclosed income for the purpose of block assessment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of disclosed income for block assessment.
3. Applicability of Division Bench judgments in determining undisclosed income.

Issue 1: Interpretation of provisions under section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The case involved a dispute regarding the correct interpretation of section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, Chennai, challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, questioning the cancellation of assessment under Chapter XIV-B. The core question was whether the Tribunal was correct in canceling the assessment under section 158BB(1)(c) despite the Assessing Officer computing the income as undisclosed income based on the return filed post-search. The court examined the submissions and relevant provisions to determine the correct application of the law.

Issue 2: Treatment of disclosed income for block assessment:
The respondent, M/s. Kerala Roadways, had filed its return post-search for the assessment year 2002-03, disclosing a total income. The Assessing Officer computed the undisclosed income after considering the disclosed income and other credits. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal differed in their views regarding the treatment of already disclosed amounts as undisclosed income for block assessment purposes. The court analyzed the facts and legal precedents to resolve this discrepancy.

Issue 3: Applicability of Division Bench judgments in determining undisclosed income:
The court considered the judgments of the Division Bench in A. R. Enterprises' case, which held that income disclosed on account of advance tax payments cannot be treated as undisclosed income for block assessment. The appellant attempted to argue based on a different judgment but the court, after examining the precedents cited, concluded that the position of law established by the Division Bench was consistent and authoritative. Consequently, the court upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and precedents considered by the court in reaching its decision.