DCIT, Thrissur V. Rani Roy, Thrissur

ITSSA 14/COCH/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8164 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSE POTTOKKARAN
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NO.14/COCH/2005 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T(SS)A NO. 14/COCH/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1995 TO 20-11-2001) DY.CIT, CENT.CIR VS RANI ROY THRISSUR MECHERY HOUSE, OLLUR THRISSUR PAN : NOT AVAILABLE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JOSE POTTOKKARAN DATE OF HEARING : 18-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-06-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, KOCHI DATED 27-10-2004 AND PERTAIN S TO BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1995 TO 20- 11-2001. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO INV ESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CHINNAN SONS JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,30,000 . 3. SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT SAID TO BE MADE IN CHINNAN SON S JEWELLERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT SHE HAS INVESTED R S.7,30,000 IN M/S CHINNAN SONS JEWELLERY AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.7,60,000 BEING THE SALE OF GOLD CREDITED IN THE NAME OF 2 IT(SS)A NO.14/COCH/2005 THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, ACCO RDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION. COMING TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS.4,37,725 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PA ID ADVANCE-TAX. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, MERE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE-TAX CANNOT BE A REAS ON TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI JOSE POTTOKKARAN, THE LD.R EPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED GOLD WORTH RS.7,30,000 IN M/S CHINNAN SONS JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN REGUL ARLY DISCLOSING SUFFICIENT INCOME. FROM THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURNS THE ASS ESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY INVESTED IN THE FI RM. ONCE THE INCOME WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO MAT ERIAL IS ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ANY FUNDS WHICH WAS NOT DISCL OSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SEA RCH MATERIAL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE L D.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH OPERATION. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT ADVANCE-TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS DISCLOSURE OF THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ESTIMATED TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT DISCLOSING INVE STMENT OF RS.7,30,000 AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.7,60,000 BEING THE SALE OF GOLD FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001- 02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE CAS H FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE I S UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. 3 IT(SS)A NO.14/COCH/2005 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY SEIZE D MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION. SECTION 158BB(1) CLEARLY SAYS THAT T HE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD HAS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION OR ANY INFORMATION WHICH IS RELATA BLE TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IN THIS CASE, NO MATER IAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ANY FUND IN CHINNAN SONS JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DISCLOSED THE INVE STMENT BY WAY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT B E ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SAID TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUB SEQUENT TO THE SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.4,37,725 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PAID ADVANCE-TAX AFTER ESTIMAT ING THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED THE TOTAL INCOME AND PAID ADVANCE-TAX, THE INCOME TO THAT EXTENT AMOUNTS TO D ISCLOSURE UNDER THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRME D. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 01 ST JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 01 ST JUNE, 2012 PK/- 4 IT(SS)A NO.14/COCH/2005 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH