| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 3217 2012 SLD 3217 (2012) 344 ITR 402 |
Karnataka High Court
IT APPEAL NO. 2840 OF 2005 [BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000] APRIL 5, 2010
K.L.MANJUNATH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
A. Shankar and M. Lava for the Appellant. K.V. Aravind and I.S. Indra Kumarfor the
Respondent.
IT APPEAL NO. 2840 OF 2005 [BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000] APRIL 5, 2010
K.L.MANJUNATH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
A. Shankar and M. Lava for the Appellant. K.V. Aravind and I.S. Indra Kumarfor the
Respondent.
Smt. Subha Prasad v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation)
Law:
Section:
Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income of any other person - Block period 1990-91 to 1999-2000 - Where search had not been conducted in premises of assessee, advance tax was paid regularly by assessee and even before issuing notice under section 158BD assessee had filed return, such income could not be assessed as assessee's undisclosed income for block period [In favour of assessee] Though the assessee was regular in paying the taxes but was not in the habit of filing returns. On the basis of documents seized during search on third party, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 158BD, and treated the entire income for the block assessment year as undisclosed income. On appeal, the assessee contended that the income assessed by the Assessing Officer could not be treated as undisclosed income on account of the fact that the assessee was very regular in paying the advance tax every year. The appeal was rejected. Held that the very fact that the assessee was paying the advance tax on time every year within the due date would show her intention to offer her income to the tax and not to hide or conceal the income. If really the intention of the assessee was to conceal her income, she would not have paid the advance tax on time. Search had not been conducted in the premises of the assessee, advance tax was paid regularly by the assessee and even before issuing notice under section 158BD the assessee had filed the return. The only mistake committed by the assessee was that though the advance tax was paid on time, the return was filed belatedly. Therefore, such income could not be assessed as undisclosed income for block period. CASES REFERRED TO Asstt. CIT v. A.R. Enterprises [2005] 274 ITR 110 (Mad.) (paras 4, 10). JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.-The assessee has come up in this appeal being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the order passed by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and further confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A No. 13/B/02, dated March 28, 2005. At the time of admission the appeal is…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492