Kiran Gilada, Hyderabad v. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITSSA 30/HYD/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3022516 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AARPG8349K
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 30/HYD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Kiran Gilada, Hyderabad
Respondent DCIT, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 09-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 09-03-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 04-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.30/HYD/2009 : BLOCK PERIOD 1986-87 TO 1996-97 KIRAN GILADA HIMAYATNAGAR HYDERABAD. (PAN - AARPG8349K) VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 16(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI R.B. KABRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H. PHANI RAJU O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIO D FROM 1986-87 TO 1996-97 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DCIT CIRCLE-16(1) HYDERABAD DATED 31-12-2008. 2. FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL- '1. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED IS ER RONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING A SUM O F RS.2 11 390 AS INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD.' 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WIFE OF SRI ASHOK KUMAR GILADA WHO IS A SHARE BROKER. A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SRI ASHOK 2 KUMAR GILADA A SHARE BROKER ON 24-1-1996 BOTH AT H IS RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES AT DOOR NO.3-6-227 HIMAYATNAGAR HYDERA BAD AND 210 PARAS CHAMBERS HIMAYATNAGAR HYDERABAD RESPECTIVELY . SEARCH WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 30-4-1996. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 158BC(C) AND 158BD HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 6-6-19 97 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SENT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON CERTAIN ISSUES AS DISCUSSED IN THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA-3. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143[3] RE AD WITH S.158BC & 254 OF THE ACT. WHILE DOING SO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED THE INCOME OF RS.77 640 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND RS.1 33 750 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 5-96 AND FINALLY DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A T RS.2 11 390. AGGRIEVED BY HIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO SEARCH PANCHANAMA WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE ONLY U/S 158BD OF THE ACT READ WI TH SECTION 158BC ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEARCH WHICH RE LATES TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MANDATORY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD HIS FINDING IN WRITING IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED PERSONS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT & OTHERS (289 ITR 341) HELD THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGE D TO THE OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED AND ACCORDING T O THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING RECORDED AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN ITIATED ARE INVALID AB INITIO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REITERATED TH E SAME CONTENTIONS BEFORE US WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. HE RELIED 3 ON THE CIRCULAR NO. 14[XL-35] ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 11TH APRIL 1955 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT TAK E ADVANTAGE OF AN ASSESSEE'S IGNORANCE TO COLLECT MORE TAX OUT OF HIM THAN IS LEGIMATELY DUE FROM HIM. IN SUPPORT HIS VARIOUS CONTENTIONS HE R ELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: [A] APPALA RAJU VS. ACIT [100 TTJ 438] [B] SUGANCHAND C. SHAH VS. ACIT [14 9 TAXMAN 30] [C] CIT VS. SHAMLAL BALRAM GURBANI [249 ITR 501] IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATI NG A SUM OF RS.2 11 390 AS INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE DCIT CIR-16(1) HYDERABAD SUBMITTED THAT HE IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 158 BD READ WITH S.158 BC VALIDLY INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE NOT FILE D ANY RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND 1995-96 AND HENCE THE INCOME FOR THE AFORESAID YEARS ARE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE LD THAT THE SUM OF RS.77 640 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND RS.1 33 750 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 HAVE BEEN ADMITTED VOLUNTARILY AT THE TIME OF FILING OF BLOCK RETURN OF INCOME AND THIS DOES NOT FORM PART OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE NOT FILED ANY VALID RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND 1995-96 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITI ON TO THE RETURNED INCOMES FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN DISCU SSION. HENCE WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER THAT DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS AFTE R PERUSAL OF THE 4 DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIAL PERTAINING TO M/S. NAVME E SECURITIES THE DEPARTMENT NOTICED AND RECORDED THAT M/S NAVMEE SECURIT IES EARNED SUBSTANTIAL INCOME AND NOT SHOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER S.158BD READ WITH SECTIO N 158BC OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD HIS FINDINGS AND REJECT THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9-04-2010. SD/- G.C.GUPTA SD/- AKBER BASHA VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 9TH APRIL 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. KIRAN GILADA C/O M/S. R.B. KABRA & CO. CAS 1- 917 TILAKNAGAR HYDERABAD. 2 THE ACIT CIR-3(1) HYDERABAD. 3. DCIT CIR- 16(1) HYDERABAD. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. JMR