TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making aforesaid addition without appreciating that Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2008 in IT(SS)A No.-218/Del/2004 had held that said investment cannot be regarded as "undisclosed income". 1.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making aforesaid addition without appreciating that said addition as without jurisdiction being violative of clear directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2008. 1.3. Without prejudice, the CIT(A erred on facts of the case and position in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making aforesaid addition on the ground that no new evidences/documents have been submitted by assessee to establish that such investments were made out of disclosed sources of income. 1.4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A erred on facts of the case and position in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making aforesaid addition without appreciating that onus was on the assessing officer to establish that aforesaid investment represent "undisclosed income" under chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal in para 5 held that whereas the amount of Rs. 2,10,818/- pertained to Financial year 1979-80 & 1983-84, accordingly it concluded that since it pertained to the period before the commencements of the relevant block period as such it could not be added in the relevant block assessment. On the said issue, it was submitted there was no remand. 4.2. Addressing the amount of Rs. 4,99,304/- it was submitted that the ITAT in para 5 concluded that the said amount also could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee as the assessee's name was not appearing therein. Accordingly it was his submission that the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal deserve to be dismissed as the AO lacked the jurisdiction to make the addition of the above stated two amount in the second round as the issues stood already concluded by the ITAT. 5. Addressing the issue arising in the assessee's cross-objection it was submitted that it also stood concluded by the ITAT in para 6 as such the AO lacked the jurisdiction to make the addition and the CIT(A) on facts was not justified in upholding the addition made. These arguments it was submitted would address the assessee's C.O as well as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal Investments determined by AO 708,950 324,000 345,000 1,377,950 Less:-Credit allowed by AO 705,635 125,000 125,000 Balance Undisclosed income assessed 3,315 Nil 1,99,000 1,99,000 220,000 220,000 419,000 Undisclosed income on account of investment 419,000 Add:-Cash found 80,000 499,000 Undisclosed income assessed by AO The block assessment order shows that the investments considered by the Assessing Officer represent payments made by the assessee for purchase of a flat in the Philips Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited in which the assessee is a member holding membership No- 188. At page 13 of the paper book is a letter dated 2.12.1996 written by the society to the assessee stating that the assessee has till then paid Rs. 2,53,000/- to the society of which Rs. 1,33,000/- was adjusted towards the land cost and the balance towards two instalments of the construction cost. In the letter, certain notings were found to have been made showing total investment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then it amounts to disclosed income even though no returns were filed by the assessee. It was argued that in any case even if the assessee had not filed the returns of income if the amounts are factually available for investment, they should be considered and given credit." 8. The departmental stand addressing the objections to the assessee's submissions are found addressed at para 4 of this order and the same reads as under:- 4."On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR submitted that the assessee is not absolved from the duty of filing the return of income merely because tax has been deducted from the salary. It was submitted that the statute says that mere non-filing of the return of income would amount to undisclosed income, whether tax has been deducted from the salary or not. He further contended that so far as the fixed deposit receipts in the name of others are concerned, they were seized from the assessee and further there was no evidence to show what their sources of income were and in these circumstances, it is possible to consider the investments as the undisclosed income of the assessee." 9. It is seen that considering these facts, the Co-ordinate Bench only in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e salary received by the assessee is credited. There are a few cash deposits in the bank account but they are not of substantial amounts so as to excite suspicion. In any case, no enquiry has been made into the source of the cash deposits and they have been accepted. The only impediment in the assessee's case appears to be technical in the sense that the assessee has not filed any returns of income with regard to his salary income. The explanation is that tax was deducted at source from the salary which was more than or equal to the tax payable and hence, the returns were not filed. In respect of the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee appears to have, filed the return of income after payment of self assessment tax of Rs. 1,078/-. The return was filed on 8th August 1997 (pages 19 to 2 1 of the paper book). No returns appear to have been filed for the other years included in the block period. The only question is whether the non-filing of the returns in the above circumstances is relevant. In CIT Vs. Mrs. Kumkum Kohli (supra), the Tribunal had held that the assessee had paid advance tax on the income by way of capital gains for the assessment year 1995-96 and though the return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income. In CIT Vs. Ashok Taksali (supra), the Rajasthan High Court held that where TDS has been deducted from the salary income of the assessee and there was nothing to show that the same has been refunded to the assessee, there was no question of holding that the income was undisclosed income and to tax it again in the block assessment after the search. The ratio of all these judgments to our humble minds appears to be that any income which has been disclosed to the income tax department, by being subjected to TDS or by paying advance tax cannot be considered as undisclosed income merely because no assessment has been made or no return was filed. The requirement that the income should have been disclosed to the department appears to have been satisfied by the fact that it has been subjected to TDS or advance tax. The learned counsel for the assessee has also pointed out, in our opinion rightly, that wherever the tax deducted at source is equal to or greater than the actual tax liability of the assessee, no consequence attaches to the non-filing of the return. In the present case, the salary of the assessee has been credited to the bank accou....