Sri.P.Mohammed Sherif, Palakkad V. DCIT, Trichur

MA 69/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9264 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S BINDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: C HARISH
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

1 M.A. NO.69 /COCH/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKARA N(AM) M.A. NO.69/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT I.T(SS)A NO. 139/COCH/2005) (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1996 TO 28-08-2002) P MOHAMMED SHERIEF VS DY.CIT, CENT.CIR. PAZHERI HOUSE, THENKARA PALAKKAD MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD PAN : AJFPS6305L (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI C HARISH RESPONDENT BY : MS. A.S. BINDHU DATE OF HEARING : 14-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-10-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. SHRI C HARISH, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAX PAYER SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS AT PARAGRAPH 14 OF ITS ORDER FOUND THA T BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE NOT FILED THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS MARKED AS RRA3 BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL. IN FACT, THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THE COPIES OF DOCUMENT MARKED AS RRA3 IN THE PAPER BOOK; THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT. ON A QUERY FROM 2 M.A. NO.69 /COCH/2012 THE BENCH WHETHER ANY STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S 13 2(4) OF THE ACT, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND A SURVEY WAS ALSO CONDUCTED SUBSEQUENT TO T HE SEARCH AS AN OFF-SHOOT. HOWEVER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE CLARIFIED THAT THE S TATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) AND THE SURVEY MATERIALS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WE HEARD, THE LD.DR, MS. A.S. BINDHU ALSO. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LD .REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER IS THAT HE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF DOCUMEN T MARKED AS RRA3. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE INVESTMENT IN THE CAPITAL OF M.A. MOTO RS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. SECTI ON 158BB(1) CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF UN DISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF ANY INFORMATION RELATABLE TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THEREFORE, STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND THE MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO THE EVIDENC E FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ARE TO BE EXAMINED WHILE COMPUTING THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME. ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT FILED THE STATEMENT RECORDED U /S 132(4) OF THE ACT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION. THEREFORE, IT IS PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIB LE FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO COME TO A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE MATERIAL, THE ONLY COURSE AVA ILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL IS TO REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. THIS WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFO RE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN 3 M.A. NO.69 /COCH/2012 THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE TAXPAYER . ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 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