DCIT, Salem v. Sri S.M.R.Kumaresan, Namakkal

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: D - BENCH:CHEN NAI (BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER & ABRAHAM P. GEORGE. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO. 103/MDS/2005 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01-04-1995 TO 26-12-2001. & ITA NOS.695 & 2468/MDS/06 ASST. YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-304 AND ITA NO.696/MDS/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIR. SALEM (APPELLANT) VS. SMT.R.K.PREMA W/O SRI S.M.R.KUMARESAN 4 KUMARASAMY CHETTY ST. RASIPURAM PO. NAMAKKAL DT. (PAN AKDPP7195C (RESPONDENT) THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIR. SALEM (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI S.M.R. KUMARESAN 6/259 SURYA GARDEBNS TRICHY RD NAMAKKAL. (PAN ALIPK6169K) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY RESPONDENTS BY: SHRI K.E.B.RANGARAJAN JR.STANDING COUSNELSHRI SHRI N.QUADIR HOSEYN ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 2 ORDER PER SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE A.M: ALL THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE. IN THE FIR ST THREE THE ASSESSEE IS ONE SMT. R.K.PREMA AND IN THE LAST ONE IT IS HER HUSBAND SRI S.M.R.KUMARESAN. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF PROCEEDINGS RESULTING FROM SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI S.M.R .KUMARESAN ON 25-12- 2001 AND PURSUANT ASSESSMENTS THESE ARE DISPOSED O F THROUGH A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN WHICH SMT.R.K.PREMA IS THE RESPONDENT ARE TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPOSAL. 3. GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO.103/MDS/2 005 RAISED THROUGH ITS GROUNDS 1 TO 9 ARE TWOFOLD. FIRST ONE COVERED THROUGH GROUNDS 2 & 3 IS THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING INCOME DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEARS 1998-99 TO 2001-02 TO BE NOT UNDISCLOS ED SINCE THESE WERE BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASST. YE ARS. SECOND GRIEVANCE COVERED IN GROUNDS 4 TO 7 IS THAT THE CIT(A) HELD T HE INCOME FROM MINI BUSES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME 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 T HE PREMISES OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI S.M.R. KUMARESAN ON 26-12-2 001. DURING THE ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 3 COURSE OF SUCH SEARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT TWO MINI BU SES WITH REGISTRATION NUMBERS TN-28-S 1277 AND TN-28-S 1268 WERE PURCHASE D 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 CLAI MED BY HIM THAT INCOME FROM SUCH BUSES SHOULD BE TREATED AS HIS. SH RI KUMARESAN HAD ALSO OFFERED SUCH INCOME IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED ALONG WITH HIS RETURN. HOWEVER AO NOTED THAT NOT ONLY WERE THE B USES HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT EVEN HIRE PURCHASE LOANS WERE A LSO OBTAINED IN HER NAME AND THEREFORE ACCORDING TO HIM INCOME FROM SU CH BUSES WAS ASSESSABLE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PE R THE AO SHRI S.M.R. KUMARESAN ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD CLAIMED OWNERSHI P OF THE BUSES AND SHOWN THE INCOME THEREFROM AS HIS OWN ONLY FOR AVA ILING LOSS SET OFF FROM HIS OTHER BUSINESS. AO THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT S UCH INCOME MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT NEVERT HELESS HE NOTED THAT SINCE SHRI KUMARESAN HAD ADMITTED INCOME FROM SUCH BUSES AS A PART OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IT HAD TO BE ASSESSED IN HI S HANDS PROTECTIVELY AS WELL. 5. INCOME FOR VARIOUS YEARS STARTING FROM A.Y 1999- 2000 BEING THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH ONE OF THE BUS WAS PURCHASED WAS COM PUTED BY THE AO ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 4 CONSIDERING THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY SHRI S.M.R. KUMARESAN. 6. ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS SUCCES SFUL ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) NO STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME REFLECTED IN THE RETURN FILED BY HE R HUSBAND SHRI S.M.R.KUMARESAN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WHICH INTER ALIA INCLUDED INCOME FROM MINI BUSES WAS NEITHER DOUBTED NOR DISCREDITE D BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE SHRI S.M.R.KUMARESAN WAS THE REAL OWNER AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE SAID BUSES W ERE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI KUMARESAN. HE THEREFORE DI RECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM MINI BUSES I N THE ASSESSEES HANDS AND TO CONSIDER SUCH INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BA SIS IN THE HANDS OF HER HUSBAND SHRI S.M.R.KUMARESAN ONLY. 7. NOW BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE MINI BUSES WERE OWNED BY ASSESS EE AND JUST BECAUSE HER HUSBAND OWNED UP THE INCOME FROM SUCH BUSES IT WOULD NOT BECOME HIS INCOME BUT WAS NECESSARILY TO BE INCLUDED IN TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PER CONTRA LD. AR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL S UBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE MINI BUSES TN-28-S 1277 AND TN-28-S 1268 WERE ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 5 PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE AND WAS HELD IN HER NAME. EVE N THE HIRE PURCHASE LOAN FOR ACQUISITION OF THE BUSES WERE OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI KUMARES AN HAD OWNED UP THE BUSES AS WELL AS HIS INCOME THEREFROM IN HIS RE TURN. NEVERTHELESS THIS WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY VEST THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF TH E BUSES WITH SHRI S.M.R. KUMARESAN. REGISTRATION 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 T HEREFROM WAS SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF HER HUSBAND WOULD NO T DIVEST FROM THE ASSESSEE HER OBLIGATION TO SHOW THE INCOME THEREFRO M IN HER RETURN. ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO SHOW THE INCOME FROM THE MI NIBUSES 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 ASSESSEES HAND S TO HER HUSBAND. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INCOME FROM SUCH MINI BUSES WERE RIGHTLY ASSESSED BY AO IN ASSESSEES HANDS. LD. CIT(A) FELL IN ERROR WHEN HE PLACED UNDUE STRESS ON THE WORD POSSIBLY USED IN THE ASSESSMEN T 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 ASSESSEES 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 FRO M SUCH BUSES IN THE ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 6 HANDS OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND DELETING THE ADDITI ON IN ASSESSEES HANDS. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND REINSTATE THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF MINI BUSES. GROUN D NO.4 TO 7 OF THE REVENUE STAND ALLOWED. 9. NOW WE TAKE UP FIRST ISSUE TAKEN BY REVENUE WHIC H IS REGARDING THE INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT FOR A.YS. 1998-99 TO 200 1-02 BEING DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A) TO BE EXCLUDED FOR WORKING OUT THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME. 10. AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY ASSESSE E DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HER INCOME FOR A.Y 19 98-99 WAS ` 35 000/- A.Y 1999-2000 ` 25 000/- A.Y 2000-01 AGAIN `25 000/- A.Y 2001-02 WAS `32 000/- AND FOR THE BROKEN PERIOD OF 01-04-2001 T O 26-12-2001 BEING THE LAST PART OF THE BLOCK FALLING IN A.Y 2002-03 IT WAS `40 500/-. SINCE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR SUCH YEARS AO CONSI DERED THE INCOME ADMITTED FOR THESE YEARS AS NIL IN TERMS OF SEC .158BB(I)(CA) OF THE ACT AND THE ABOVE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE CASH-FLOW WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEAR S. ASSESSEE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN HER APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO HELD TH AT INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT DID NOT CONSTITUTE UNDISCLOSED INC OME. 11. NOW BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY ASSAILED THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 7 12. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN THE FIRST PLACE IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT AT PARE-8 AB OVE WE HAVE REINSTATED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM M INI BUSES FOR A.YS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02AND FOR THE BROKEN PERIOD 01-04 -20001 TO 28-12- 2001 FALLING IN THE BLOCK. NO DOUBT WE AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IF WE TABULATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEARS 1998-99 TO 2001-02 AND FOR THE BROKEN PERIOD 01- 04-2001 TO 26-12-2001 INCLUDING THE INCOME FROM MI NI BUSES IT WOULD BE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER CASH FLOW STATEMENT INCOME FROM MINI BUSES TOTAL ` ` ` 1998-99 35 000 NIL 35 000 1999-2000 25 000 30 000 55.000 2000-01 25 000 85 950 1 10 950 2001-02 32 000 1 11 540 1 43 540 BROKEN PERIOD 01- 04-2001 TO 26-12- 2001 40 500 2 30 850 2 71 350 IF WE LOOK AT THE 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. YEAR S. HENCE WE ARE OF THE ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 8 OPINION THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT INCOME WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT WOULD NOT HOLD ANY WATER INSOFAR AS IT RELATE TO ASST. Y EARS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 AND FOR BROKEN PERIOD 01-04-2001 TO 26-12-2001 PERT AINING TO A.Y. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT FOR THE LATTER ASST. YEARS IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ONLY. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. REL ATED GROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT CITED ABOV E. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. WE NOW TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 695MDS/06. EIGHT GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE OF WHICH GR OUND NOS.1 AND 2 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDING NO ADJUDICATION. 15. VIDE ITS GROUNDS 2 TO 6 GRIEVANCE RAISED BY TH E 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 ASSE SSMENT COVERED THE PERIOD 26-12-2001 TO 31-03-2002 BEING THE PERI OD AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN RELATION TO REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE WE HAVE AT PARA-8 ABOVE HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM THE MINI BUSES HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HERSELF SINCE SHE WAS OWNER OF THE SAID BUSES. FOR THE SAME REASONS AS MENTIONED BY US AT PARA-8 ABOVE WE ARE OF THE ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 9 OPINION THAT FOR THE PERIOD 26-12-2001 TO 31-03-200 2 ALSO INCOME WAS NECESSARILY TO BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSEES HANDS ON LY. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND REI NSTATE THE ADDITION MADE AO. GROUNDS 2 TO 6 OF THE REVENUE STAND ALLOWED. 17. VIDE ITS GROUND NO.7 GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE I S THAT THE CIT(A) HELD THE INCOME FOR THE PERIOD 01-04-2001 TO 26-12- 2001 THOUGH IT WAS A PART OF THE BLOCK PERIOD TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE SUCH INCOME FOR THE PERIO D 01-04-3001 TO 26- 12-2001 WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEEE FROM DIARY BUSINESS .LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASST. YEAR C ONSIDERED AN AMOUNT OF ` 30 000/-WHICH PERTAINED TO THE WHOLE OF THE RELEVAN T PREVIOUS YEAR. AO HIMSELF HAS STATED AT PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER THAT ` 25 000/- OUT OF THIS PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD 01-04-2001 TO 26-12-2001 COVERED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THUS THOUGH ONLY ` 5 000/- PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD 26-12-2001 TO 31-3- 2002 AO CHOSE TO ASSESS THE WHOLE AMOUNT FOR THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT. SIMILARLY A SUM OF ` 15 500/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES CONSIDERED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS AGAIN CONSIDERED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASST. YE AR. THESE WERE DONE BY THE AO ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 10 APPEAL AGAINST THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHEREIN ONE OF THE GROUND TAKEN WAS AGAINST INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT BEING TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED. 19. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER HELD T HAT THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT HAD TO BE CONSIDERING SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE R EGULAR ASSESSMENT AND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 20. NOW BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY ASSAILING THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME FALLING UNDER THE BLOCK P ERIOD COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN ANY PERIOD FALLING OUTSIDE SUCH BLOCK . PER CONTRA LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SUM OF ` 30 000/- CONSIDERED AS DIARY BUSINESS INCOME AND ` 15 500/- CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES W ERE FOR THE WHOLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED 31-03-2002 AN D THE AO HAD CONSIDERED SO ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE ASSESSMEN T FOR THE IMPUGNED ASST. YEAR. . THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THERE W AS A BLOCK ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 26 -12-2001. THEREFORE NECESSARILY BROKEN PERIOD OF 01-04-2001 TO 26-12-20 01 FALLING IN ASST. YEAR 2002-03 WAS A PART OF SUCH BLOCK AND INCOME FOR SUC H PERIOD WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ONLY. IN OUR OPINIO N DEFINITION OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AS APPEARING IN CL.(A) OF SEC. 158B OF THE ACT CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 11 THE BLOCK PERIOD INCLUDES THE PERIOD UPTO THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS. CL.(B) OF SEC. 158BC MANDATE THAT AN AO S HALL DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOMER FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THIS BEIN G SO AO WAS OBLIGED TO CONSIDER THE INCOME FROM THAT DATE OF SEARCH VIZ. 2 6-12-2001 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 THOU GH PROTECTIVELY. DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE INCOME FALL ING IN THE FRAGMENTED PERIOD OF THE BLOCK IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON S UBSTANTIVE BASIS WAS ALSO AGAINST THE MANDATE OF LAW. SUCH INCOME COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASST. YEAR EITHER PROTE CTIVELY OR SUBSTANTIVELY. WE THEREFORE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE AO. AO SHALL NOT CONSIDER INCOME FOR THE PERIOD 01-04-2001 TO 26-12- 2001 IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED AS ST. YEAR. GROUND NO.7 OF THE REVENUE THEREFORE TREATED AS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2002-303 STANDS ALLOWED PRO-TANTO. 23. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 2468/MDS/06 FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-304. SOLE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY REVEN UE IS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME FROM MINI BUSES WHICH WAS HELD BY THE CI T(A) AS NOT ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 12 ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF HER HUSBAND. 24. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD AT PARA-8 ABOVE IN RELATI ON TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD THAT THE INCOME FR OM MINI BUSES SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. HENCE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASST. YEAR ALSO REVENUE HAS TO SUCCEED. 25. APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 26. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CAS E OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI S.M.R.KUMARESAN IN ITA NO.696/MDS/06. SOLE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE THROUGH ITS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 IS THAT THE CIT(A) HELD THE INCOME FROM MINI BUSES OWNED BY ASSESSEES WIFE SMT.R.K. PREMA WAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE INCOME FROM MINI B USES WAS ASSESSABLE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES WIFE. 27. IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHERE RESPONDENT W AS ASSESSEES WIFE NAMELY ITA NO.695/MDS/06 WE HAVE ALREADY HEL D THAT INCOME FROM MINI BUSES WAS TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY IN THE HANDS O F SMT. R.K.PREMA WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. REASONS FOR TREATING IT SO HAS BEE N ELABORATED BY US AT PARA-8 ABOVE. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE INCOME FROM MINI BUSES HAS TO BE ASSESSED SUBSTANTI VELY IN ASSESSEES ITA NO. 103 695 2468 & 696. 13 HANDS CANNOT BE UPHELD. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH INCOME COULD BE ASSESSED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. R.K. PREMA. . ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 28. APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 29. TO SUMMARISE THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.103/MDS/05 IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED AND IN I TA NOS.695/MDS/.06 ALLOWED PRO-TANTO ITA NO.2468/MDS/06 AND 696/MDS/0 6 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18- 02-2011. SD/- SD/- (U.B.S.BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 18 TH FEBRUARY 2011. NBR CC: ASSESSEE/ ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A)/ CIT/ D .R/ GUARD FILE.