TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn on 10.12.2002 declaring income of Rs.4,00,000/- for the block period assessment years 1997-1998 to 2002-2003 and upto 28.05.2002. The assessment proceedings were completed by the Asssessing Officer ('the AO') by the order dated 20.05.2004 while determining total undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs.16,73,650/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2004, the assessee preferred an appeal that was considered and partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur ['the CIT (A)'] by the order dated 18.10.2005 wherein the learned CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee on various scores, as noticed infra. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2005 so passed by the CIT (A), the appellant (Revenue) filed an appeal before the Tribunal that has been partly allowed by the impugned order dated 11.03.2010. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant (Revenue) raised different grounds, which have been summarised at the outset by the Tribunal and are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "1. On the facts and the circumstances of this case, the learned CIT (A), Udaipur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25101/- made on account of unexplained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k period only. The rates for block period would be governed by charging section 4 of the act, which says that rate prescribed under Central Act would be applicable to income of previous year." So far as the grounds Nos.1, 4, 6, 8 and 9 aforesaid relating to the alleged unexplained items of cash, expenditure, deposit and investments are concerned, the Tribunal found the learned CIT (A) justified in accepting the explanations of the assessee with reference to the material on record and the customs of the family; and found no reason to interfere. So far as the ground No.2 aforesaid relating to investment in construction of residential house is concerned, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the discount allowed at 10% towards self supervision charges but then, considered it proper to modify the order passed by the CIT (A) in relation to the rebate for the difference between CPWD rates and PWD rates; and, instead of 20%, allowed this rebate at 15%. The Tribunal also found some incongruity in the statement of the assessee regarding the amount already brought to tax on account of unexplained investment in the house property by himself or as contribution by other membe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosed income covering the investment in construction of property, unexplained gold and silver jewellery, cash etc. That besides, we also find a whisper that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is stated to have been stated out of undisclosed income of the family members. These statements appear to be contradictory. The Assessing Officer shall verify this fact as to how much amount has factually be brought to tax as undisclosed income on account of unexplained investment in the house property in his hands or as contribution by other family members. Any amount as such that is found to have been taxed as undisclosed income shall further be reduced from the undisclosed investment worked out as aforesaid and balance thereof shall also be brought to tax as undisclosed income for the block period. The Assessing Officer, however, shall ensure that unexplained investment, if any, on this account, is not taxed twice, i.e., once as declaration of undisclosed income by the assessee in his return and again as difference between the cost worked out on appreciation of evidence and cost/investment found disclosed from known sources and met out from the declared sources. Accordingly, the order of the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities below is that in the return of undisclosed income filed for the block period, the respondent-assessee himself has declared Rs.200000/- as his undisclosed income on account of investment in renovation of shop. That being so, the ld. CIT (A) could not have deleted the income so declared though stated to have been taxed by the Assessing Officer on protective basis. It, however, sounds reasonable that the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the assessee - once as per disclosure of undisclosed income made in his return by him and again on protective basis. This fact needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer, who shall ensure inclusion of Rs. 2 lacs as assessee's undisclosed income on the basis of declaration made by him in the return of income and shall decide the issue accordingly." The Tribunal further proceeded to allow ground No. 11 with reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh N.Gupta: (2008) 214 CTR 274. The appellant (Revenue) seeks to question the order so passed by the Tribunal particularly in relation to the grounds that have not been all....