9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t undisclosed, since these were below the taxable limit for the respective Asst. years. Second grievance covered in grounds 4 to 7 is that the CIT(A) held the income from mini buses owned by the assessee to be the undisclosed income of her husband, and not that of the assessee. 4. Second issue relating to the mini buses is taken up first for adjudication. As mentioned, there was a search in the premises of assessee's husband Shri S.M.R. Kumaresan on 26-12-2001. During the course of such search it was found that two mini buses with Registration Numbers TN-28-S 1277 and TN-28-S 1268 were purchased by the assessee on 08-09-1998 and 20-05-1999 at a cost of `3 lakh each.In the cash flow statement filed by Shri S.M.R. Kumaresan, during the course of block assessment proceedings in his case, cost of the above mini buses was shown by him as an outflow and it was also claimed by him that income from such buses should be treated as his. Shri Kumaresan had also offered such income in the statement of income filed along with his return. However, AO noted that not only were the buses held in the name of the assessee but even hire purchase loans were also obtained in her name and therefore, acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion certificates of the buses were also stated to be in the name of the assessee and this has not been rebutted by the ld. AR. Just because acquisition of buses and income therefrom was shown in the cash flow statement of her husband, would not divest from the assessee her obligation to show the income therefrom in her return. Assessee was obliged to show the income from the minibuses in her own return, the buses having been purchased in her name, held in her name and loans having been obtained in her name. The act of Shri Kumaresan in admitting such income in his block return or in the statements given by him would not shift the income from assessee's hands to her husband. We are of the opinion that income from such mini buses were rightly assessed by AO in assessee's hands. Ld. CIT(A) fell in error when he placed undue stress on the word 'possibly' used in the assessment order by the AO. This word was used by AO only for reasoning out why the income from the buses might have been offered by assessee's husband in his return of income. Nothing more could be read into the use of such word. CIT(A) fell in error in directing the AO to consider income from such buses in the hands of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above table, it can be seen that the income for A.Y1998- 99 alone was below taxable limit and for all other years it was above the basic exemption limit for the respective asst. years. Hence, we are of the opinion that assessee's claim that income was below taxable limit would not hold any water insofar as it relate to asst. years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 and for broken period 01-04-2001 to 26-12-2001 pertaining to A.Y. We, therefore, hold that for the latter asst. years it has to be considered as undisclosed income only. Ordered accordingly. Related grounds 2 and 3 of the Revenue are allowed to the extent cited above. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 14. We now take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.695'Mds/06. Eight grounds have been raised by the Revenue of which ground Nos.1 and 2 are general in nature needing no adjudication. 15. Vide its grounds 2 to 6, grievance raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO from the income from mini buses. 16. The impugned asst. year is 2002-03 and the assessment covered the period 26-12-2001 to 31-03-2002, being the period after the date of search. In relation to Revenue's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of `30,000/- considered as diary business income and `15,500/- considered as income from other sources, were for the whole of the previous year ended 31-03-2002, and the AO had considered so on protective basis in the assessment for the impugned asst. year. . There is also no dispute that there was a block assessment done on the assessee for the block period ending 26-12-2001. Therefore, necessarily broken period of 01-04-2001 to 26-12-2001 falling in asst. year 2002-03 was a part of such block and income for such period would have to go into the block assessment only. In our opinion, definition of the 'block period' as appearing in cl.(a) of Sec. 158B of the Act clearly mentions that the block period includes the period upto the date of commencement of business. Cl.(b) of sec. 158BC mandate that an AO shall determine the undisclosed incomer for the block period. This being so, AO was obliged to consider the income from that date of search viz. 26-12-2001 only, for the regular assessment of the impugned asst. year.. He fell in error in including the income forming a part of the block period, though protectively. Direction of the CIT(A) to consider the income falling in the fragment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
