HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’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 SENGUPTA AND HON’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 the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 3rd August 2012 in relation 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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the disallowance of interest payment in the block period by the Assessing Officer is not justified?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the addition of income disclosed in the return of income for Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98, which were treated as non est, is not justified, ignoring the provisions of Section 158BB(1) (CA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal, in paragraph No.77 of the judgment, on fact found that the assessee filed return of income though belatedly but before the date of search conducted on 03-01-2002 and the income disclosed therein cannot be considered as undisclosed income. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the learned Tribunal found that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner 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 Ramlakshman Marketing Agencies for assessment year 2001-02 was filed on 31-10-2001 much before the search conducted on 03-
01-2002. Similarly, the tax audit report for assessment year 2002-03 was also filed within the time limit prescribed under the law. M/s Intraport India Limited also filed its return 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 of interest by M/s Sri Ramlakshman Marketing Agencies were available with the Assessing Officer much before the search conducted in Bagga group of cases on 03-01-2002.”
In view of the aforesaid factual position, the learned Tribunal has followed the settled law that the regular assessment and block assessment operate simultaneously on different fields. But, one does not preclude the other. This proposition of law has been well supported by the decisions of the Gujarat, Mumbai and Kerala High Courts.
From the aforesaid fact-findings of the learned Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. We, therefore, declined to admit the appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
15-4-2014
Gsn
SANJAY KUMAR, J