TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant & the provisions of Block Asstt. were not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) should have held that since there was no individual search warrant in the name of the appellant, no Block Asstt. Order could be passed in his case." 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Vandana Verma reported in 330 ITR 533 (All.) wherein it was held that when the warrant of authorization for search was issued in the joint names of husband and wife, individual assessments in the names of husband and wife alone is not valid. He further submitted that this judgment of the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in 252 CTR 356 wherein it was held that in view of the provisions of Section 292CC of the Act as inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect, even where the warrant of authorization of search has been issued jointly, the assessment can be made individually. He further submitted that as per this judgment of the larger bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, this issue is covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and therefore Division Bench judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Verma (Supra) and Madhu Chawla (Supra) are no more valid. Regarding this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of Madhu Chawla (Supra), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and as per this judgment of the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the issue in dispute is covered against the assessee because it was held by larger Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in that case that even where the warrant of authorization has been issued jointly, the assessment can be made individually. 7. Now, we are left with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Madhu Chawla (Supra) in course of deciding the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Madhu Chawla (Supra). We find that as per this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the SLP of the Revenue was dismissed without any di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT (A) on this issue. Accordingly, Grounds No. 1 and 2 of the assessee are rejected. 9. Grounds No. 3 and 4 are as under:- "1. The learned CIT(A) was wrong in the law and on facts in sustaining following additions in the Block Asstt. of the appellant. a. Addition relating to alleged commission/interest Asstt. Year Amount 1999-2000 52150/- 2000-2001 59049/- 2001-2002 68437/- 2002-2003 65823/- 245459/- b. Addition in respect of alleged Salary Asstt. Year Amount 2000-2001 21600/- 2001-2002 39600/- 61200/- 4. The learned CIT(A) while sustaining the aforesaid additions have failed to appreciate the real facts of the case & the explanation furnished by the appellant as there was no undisclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in his/her return of income and the cash amount said to be received by the assessee is also not belonging to the assessee but to his family members and therefore, no addition is called for on this account in the case of the assessee. As against this, Ld. DR of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. He also submitted that even if same income has been shown by the family members of the assessee, this is settled position of law by now that income has to be assessed in correct hands and therefore, the addition in the hands of the present assessee is proper because the commission was received by the assessee as per seized material. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the assessment order, it was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Bajaj Group to the assessee because the assessee was working with Bajaj Group and since the alleged accommodation entries are admittedly in the name of family members of the assessee, such commission income for providing accommodation entries in fact belongs to respective family members and such family member is already accounting for interest income in respect of the alleged accommodation entries and such interest income already taken into account by the family members is at the rate of 12% whereas the commission is said to have been received at the rate of 5% only. Under this factual position, we are of the considered opinion that separate addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged payment in respect of alleged....