9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e block assessment in respect of the block assessment order passed under section 158BC of the Act, dated 31-12-2004. It is submitted that the ingredients of the section are not satisfied for assumption of jurisdiction. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) went wrong in her finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as a result of the non-inclusion of the returned income of Rs. 17,28,470 for 1997-98 and 1998-99 assessments. 4. The CIT(Central) was unjustified in rejecting the objection raised by the appellant by order dated 28-7-2006 to the proposed action. The objections raised in the letter dated 28-7-2006 may be considered as part of these grounds." 3. The briefly stated facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04,350 and Rs. 11,24,120 respectively but as the returns were filed only on 7-7-2000, the said returns were invalid returns and the Assessing Officer should have included the income declared voluntarily by the assessee in those two returns while computing the undisclosed income in the block assessment. The CIT (Central) also referred to the decision in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT v. Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons [2006] 282 ITR 457 (Bom.) and directed the Assessing Officer to bring to tax the amount of Rs. 17,28,470 which was omitted to be assessed in the block assessment. Now, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT before us in this appeal. 5. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies of the acknowledgement of the returns as well the computation statement. It is further argued that the returns were filed on 7-7-2000 and the search action was conducted on 19-12-2004, i.e., after the lapse of period of four years from the filing of said returns. It is further argued that in respect of the returns filed by the assessee on 7-7-2000, the Assessing Officer has not taken any action, as he could have regularized the said returns by issuing notice under section 148. He finally submitted that the decisions relied on by the CIT(Central) are not applicable to the facts of this case, though the decisions are rendered in the context of issue regarding the doctrine of merger. 6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id returns, then the Assessing Officer could have regularized the said returns by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. If the assessee has paid the advance-tax and he has filed the returns, though the said returns are invalid returns, in our opinion, the income declared by the assessee in those returns does not partake the character of undisclosed income which could be subject-matter of assessment under section 158BC. On the perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has independently worked out the entire undisclosed income and he has rightly considered the income declared by the assessee in the returns filed for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. As far as the two decisions relied on by the CIT(Central) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
