TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tober 18, 1996, to October 30, 1996, in the premises of Sarva Shri Purshottam Khatri, C.L. Khatri, Asandas Khatri and their group. In the case of the respondent, a warrant of authorisation under section 132 of the Act and rule 112(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short "the Rules"), authorising the search of locker No. 133 in Allahabad Bank, Royal Market, Bhopal, belonging to the respondent and C.L. Khatri was also issued on October 18, 1996, and pursuant thereto search was carried out in the said locker. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (for short "the ACIT") (Investigation), Circle 1, Bhopal, made an assessment under section 158BC read with section 143(3) of the Act on the respondent by the block period April 1, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of the learned Tribunal was not perverse and inconsistent with/contrary to the material available on record? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of section 158BB(1) and 158BB(1)(c), the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that if the total income in those assessment years in which the return was not filed before the search was conducted, is below the taxable limit after claiming deduction under section 80L of the Act, the income of that year shall not be considered as part of the undisclosed income and whether such decision of the learned Tribunal is not contrary to the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle 1, Bhopal, was the Assessing Officer in the case of the respondent for block period April 1, 1986 to October 18, 1996, and since the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle 1, Bhopal, has passed the assessment order in the case of the respondent, the finding of the Tribunal that the Assessing Officer did not have valid jurisdiction to make the assessment was perverse and inconsistent with the material on record. Mr. A.P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that there was no proof before the Tribunal that any search was carried out in respect of the respondent and therefore for this reason the Tribunal held that the Assistant Commissioner of Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle 1, Bhopal. We further find from para. 4 of the impugned order that the representative of the Department submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) thus got jurisdiction over all the assessees upon whom search and seizure operations were carried out in respect of whom some incriminating evidence was noticed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax while framing the assessment in search cases. In para. 5 of the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the onus was upon the Revenue to prove that the assessment was framed by the competent Assessing Officer who has valid jurisdiction over the assessee by placing some evidence on record in this regard but the Revenue h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear from the language of section 158BD of the Act that when the books of account, other documents or assets of a person in respect of whom no such search is carried out under section 132 of the Act are seized, the same shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person for assessment. But, in the present case, we have seen that a search was in fact carried out of the locker belonging to the respondent under section 132 of the Act and therefore it was the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle 1, Bhopal, and not the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to make the regular assessment who had jurisdiction to make the assessment by virtue of the aforesaid notification dated April 28, 1995, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 1989-90 to 1996-97, her income was not to be treated as undisclosed income of the block period. The second substantial question of law is answered accordingly. The Tribunal has further held paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order that after allowing the deduction under section 80L, the total income of the respondent in the assessment year 1987-88 comes to Rs. 7,537 which is below the taxable limit for the assessment year 1987-88 and accordingly the addition of unexplained cash of Rs. 7,000 was not called for because the total income of the respondent despite such addition remained below the taxable limit. Since we have held while answering substantial question No. 2 that the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that if the t....