9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. - The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 11 th August, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench D, in IT (SS) A No.137/Del/2002 relevant for the block period ending on 8 th July, 1999. 2. The Assessee is one of the promoters of M/s Atul Glass Industries Limited (AGIL) and Maharashtra Glass and Agro Limited (MGAL). 3. A French company called Sekruti Saint Gobain (SSB) which was also in the same business as AGIL and MGAL, that is, safety glazing of automobile windshields had the intention of becoming a major supplier in India. Accordingly, AGIL, MGAL and SSB decided to join forces to meet the anticipated demand for lamina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpete fee and had claimed it to be not chargeable to tax. However, after the search and seizure, the Assessing Officer sought to treat the non-compete fee as undisclosed income of the Assessee during the block assessment proceedings. The contention of the Assessee was that the amount of non-compete fee was not undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 158B(b) of the Act. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer who concluded that the non-compete fee was really a consideration paid for a change in the shareholding in MGAL. The Assessing Officer also held that the non-compete fee was a revenue receipt and, therefore, chargeable to tax. 8. The appeal filed by the Assessee was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has not been or would not have been disclosed by the Assessee. In the present case, there is no doubt about the fact that the Assessee had disclosed the income in his regular return well before the search was carried out in the premises of Gulati. By no stretch of imagination can it, therefore, be said that the amount received by the Assessee as non-compete fee was undisclosed income. As held by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vikram A. Doshi, [2002] 256 ITR 129, the transaction having been disclosed in the return, it is the subject matter of a regular assessment and not a block assessment. A similar view was expressed by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shamlal Balram Gurbani, [200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
