TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissed and the cross objection is allowed. 2. The material facts leading up to this appeal are as follows: The assessee is a dealer in Supari business in the name and style of M/s Balaji Enterprises at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District. She is doing business since 1994 and regularly assessed to income-tax. She has filed return of income up to assessment year 1997-98. Consequent to the information in the department's possession and reason to believe that the assessee is in possession of money, assets, properties and such money, assets and properties represent either wholly or partly income, which has not been or would not be disclosed for the' purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') a search and seiznr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain amounts held that the assessee had the undisclosed income to the extent of Rs. 84,43,964/-. Accordingly, assessed the said income to tax and ordered issuance of demand notice arid also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act, separately. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) II, Bangalore. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the grounds raised in the appeal and also the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties held that the addition of amount made in a sum of Rs. 84,43,964/- as undisclosed income and tax imposed thereon cannot he sustained, as the same is not based upon the material seized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration of the substantial questions of law raised in the memorandum of appeal by order dated 5.12.2006. 6. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are as follows:- (1) Whether the appellate authority and Tribunal were correct in holding that provisions of Section 158EC and BD were not applicable to the assessee? (2) Whether provisions of Section 158BD require the Assessing Officer to have material other than what was found during the search operations to invoke the said provisions? (3) Whether the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal were correct in applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT v. Vinod Dharamchand Ghodawat reported in 247 ITR 448? 7. The learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of any document, which was not found during the search. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362/188 Taxman 113 (SC), the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT v. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat [2001] 247 ITR 448/114 Taxman 90 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of CIT v. Ashim Krishna Mondal [2004] 270 ITR 160/[2005] 144 Taxman 365. 9. The learned Counsel further submitted that the amount mentioned in the agreement entered with the contractor on 23.11.1995 was only an estimate value and cannot be said to be the exact value of construction and even while mentioning the expenses already incurred towards t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar assessment. Its scope and ambit is limited in that sense to materials unearthed during search. It is in addition to the regular assessment already done or to be done. The assessment for the block period can only be done on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account, or documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer, Therefore, the income assessable in block assessment under chapter XIV-B is the income not disclosed but found and determined as the result of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act." 11. The material facts in the case has to be considered in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as r....