Itta/250/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax I v. Balwinder Singh Bagga

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.250 of 2014 Date: 15.04.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Hyderabad .....Appellant AND Balwinder Singh Bagga,Hyderabad ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.250 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 3[rd] August 2012 inrelation to the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 and for 01-04-2001 to 03-01-2002 on the following suggested questions of law: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that thedisallowance of interest payment in the block period by theAssessing Officer is not justified? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that theaddition of income disclosed in the return of income forAssessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98, which weretreated as non est, is not justified, ignoring the provisions ofSection 158BB(1) (CA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and havegone through the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, in paragraph No.77 of the judgment, onfact found that the assessee filed return of income though belatedlybut before the date of search conducted on 03-01-2002 and theincome disclosed therein cannot be considered as undisclosedincome. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, thelearned Tribunal found that there is no infirmity in the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. The learned Tribunal further found on fact in paragraph No.82 of the judgment as follows: “The tax audit report of M/s Sri RamlakshmanMarketing Agencies for assessment year 2001-02 was filedon 31-10-2001 much before the search conducted on 03- 01-2002. Similarly, the tax audit report for assessment year2002-03 was also filed within the time limit prescribedunder the law. M/s Intraport India Limited also filed itsreturn of income for assessment year 2001-02 on 31-10-2001 much before the search conducted on 03-01-2002. Therefore, the entire transactions relating to payment ofinterest by M/s Sri Ramlakshman Marketing Agencies wereavailable with the Assessing Officer much before thesearch conducted in Bagga group of cases on 03-01-2002.” In view of the aforesaid factual position, the learned Tribunalhas followed the settled law that the regular assessment and blockassessment operate simultaneously on different fields. But, onedoes not preclude the other. This proposition of law has been wellsupported by the decisions of the Gujarat, Mumbai and Kerala HighCourts. From the aforesaid fact-findings of the learned Tribunal, wedo not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. We, therefore, declined to admit the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15-4-2014 Gsn