2005 (3) TMI 430 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules disclosed income in regular assessment cannot be treated as undisclosed income

I. Appala Raju. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the block assessment. It held that disclosed income in regular assessment cannot be treated as ... Block Assessment Issues Involved:1. Legality of the addition of loan creditors in block assessment.2. Validity of notice issued under Section 158BD.3. Merits of the addition of creditors as undisclosed income.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Addition of Loan Creditors in Block Assessment:The assessee challenged the assessment on the grounds that the loan creditors were duly disclosed in the trial balance submitted with the regular return, thus the AO lacked jurisdiction for addition under block assessment. The CIT(A) partially agreed, allowing relief for a portion of the addition but confirming the rest. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was a regular taxpayer and had disclosed the cash credits in the trial balance filed with the return for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal emphasized that block assessment under Chapter XIV-B is not a substitute for regular assessment and is limited to material unearthed during the search. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents supporting this view, including CIT vs. Vikram A Dashi, Bhagwati Prasad Kedia vs. CIT, and CIT vs. Ravi Kant Jain, among others. The Tribunal concluded that the income disclosed in regular assessment cannot be treated as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B. Therefore, the block assessment was deemed invalid and without jurisdiction.2. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 158BD:The Tribunal examined the validity of the notice issued under Section 158BD, which extends the operation of block assessment provisions to persons not directly searched. The Tribunal outlined the essential ingredients for invoking Section 158BD, including the AO's satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the one searched, and the necessity of handing over seized documents to the AO having jurisdiction over the other person. The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in Y. Subba Raju & Co. vs. Asstt. CIT, which held that the AO must have material indicating undisclosed income for issuing a notice under Section 158BD. The Tribunal found that material related to the finance business of the assessee was seized during the search at the assessee's father's premises, justifying the AO's prima facie belief for issuing the notice. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under Section 158BD.3. Merits of the Addition of Creditors as Undisclosed Income:On the merits, the assessee argued that all creditors were proved by submitting their confirmations, and no addition should be made. The Tribunal noted that the AO had added the cash credits as undisclosed income without considering that these were already disclosed in the regular assessment. The Tribunal reiterated that block assessment should be based on evidence found during the search, and any income disclosed in regular assessment cannot be treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents supporting this view, including CIT vs. Ravikant Jain and various Tribunal decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the block assessment, declaring the AO's action of examining creditors during block assessment proceedings as illegal.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the block assessment on the grounds that the income assessed was not undisclosed within the definition of Section 158B(b) of the IT Act. The Tribunal also upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 158BD but dismissed the addition of creditors as undisclosed income, emphasizing the distinction between block and regular assessments.