HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.711 OF 2014 DATED:17.12.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Hyderabad … Appellant And Harmahendar Singh Bagga … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.711 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against a portion of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.3.8.2012, which was passed in a number of appeals before the Tribunal in relation to assessment years starting from 1996-1997 to 2007-2008 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) holding that the income of “Sree Rama Enterprises” has to be considered in the hands of ‘Sree Balaji Enterprises’ and as the assessee has already included this income in ‘Sree Balaji Enterprises’ the same cannot be considered as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that the income of ‘Sree Rama Enterprises’ is to be assessed in the hands of ‘Sree Balaji Enterprises’ ignoring the evidence gathered during the course of search in the premises of the assessee is perverse?”
We have seen the portion of the judgment, which has dealt with the issues raised in the appeal. The learned Tribunal has found no new material in relation to the above issues during the search and seizure. The materials sought to be relied on, were gathered from post search and seizure exercise and the same were already disclosed by filing returns and the assessment was made. Therefore, it is settled position of law that unless new materials are found in course of search and seizure, action cannot be taken in order to undo the settled position.
The learned Tribunal has followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in
[1]
C.I.T. v. Ravi Kant Jain , on the issue appropriately. We therefore do
not find any element of law to decide in this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 17.12.2014 bnr
[1] (2001) 250 ITR 141