DCIT 14(2), MUMBAI V. SHARMILA N. PATEL, MUMBAI

ITSSA 37/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7945 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B JAYA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AASITA KHAN
• Keywords: Source of fund; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 37/MUM./2009 (BLOCK PERIOD : FROM 1991-92 TO 2000-01 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-14(2), EARNEST HOUSE NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN ACOPA8218A .. APPELLANT V/S MS. SHARMILA N. PATEL COOPER BUILDING 36/2, DADISHETH LANE BADULNATH ROAD MUMBAI 400 007 PAN ACOPA8218A .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. B. JAYA KUMAR ASSESSEE BY : MS. AASITA KHAN DATE OF HEARING 22.11.2011 DATE OF ORDER 30.11.2011 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1 ST JANUARY 2009, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) -XIV, MUMBAI, FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD FROM 1991-9 2 TO 2000-01. THE SOLE DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMI SSIONER (APPEALS) WAS MS. SHARMILA N. PATEL IT(SS)A NO. 37/MUM./2009 2 JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO TREAT THE INCOME OF ` 15,57,210 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FACTS IN BRIEF:- THE LD. CIT(A) BROUGHT OUT THE FAC TS AS FOLLOWS:- 3. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SHIVSAGAR JUICE CENTRE FROM EROS CINEMA BUILDI NG, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME IN THE ERSTWHILE SPECIAL RANGE 7, MUMBAI. AFTER RESTRUCTUR ING, THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS VESTED WITH ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI. IN HER CASE AN ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CAR RIED OUT ON 24.1.2001 AND CASH OF RS.1,00,000/- AND CERTAIN LOO SE PAPERS WERE SEIZED. BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 158 BC. RETURN IN FORM NO. 2B DECLARING UNDISC LOSED INCOME AT NIL WAS FILED ONLY ON 15.10.2001. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S . 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/ S. 158 BC(C) WAS FINALLY COMPLETED ON 22.09.2003 BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.15,57,210. WHILE DETERMINING THIS INCOME, THE SA ME WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT PREFER RED THIS APPEAL. 2. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELET ED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, MR. B. JAYA KUMAR, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, AND THE LEARNED CO UNSEL, MS. AASITA KHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ADDITION IS MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHICH IS BASED ON THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001-02. THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME WA S WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE STATUTE. THE INCOME FROM SHIV SAGAR JUICE CENTRE, AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION RECEIVED AND INTEREST INCOME ARE REGULAR SOURCES OF INCOME. AS FAR AS THE COMMISSION INCOME IS CONCERNED, IT WAS R ECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES AND WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL, BA SED ON WHICH, HE MADE AN ADDITION IN THIS CASE. HE JUST PICKED-UP THE REGULA R RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY MS. SHARMILA N. PATEL IT(SS)A NO. 37/MUM./2009 3 THE ASSESSEE AND HAS TREATED THE TOTAL RETURNED OF INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO P AID ADVANCED TAX TO THE TUNE OF ` 2,00,000, PRIOR TO SEARCH. INCOME EARNED BY THE AS SESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS I.E., INCOME FROM SHIV SAGAR JUICE CENTRE, IN COME FROM COMMISSION AND INTEREST INCOME WAS NOT TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK. ON THIS FACTUAL MATRIX, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AT PARA-10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. REVENUE FAILS ON THI S ISSUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30 TH NOVEMBER 2011 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI