TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by Sri D. Rajkumar. They are husband and wife. 3. The premises of the husband Sri D. Rajkumar was searched by the Department under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act" ). Thereafter, notices under section 158BC of the Act were issued to the assessees namely Smt. D. Komalakshi and Sri D. Rajkumar. In response to these notices, both the appellants filed returns. Smt. D. Komalakshi filed her return, declaring Rs. 19,32,838 as total undisclosed income for the block period. As per the returns, the total tax payable was declared to be Rs. 11,82,896, including surcharge. In the connected appeal, the husband-Sri D. Rajkumar declared Rs. 1,07,96,536 as total undisclosed income for the said block period. As per his retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat even the search operation carried out under section 132 of the Act is bad in law and ab initio void. He would also say that the very jurisdiction of proceeding under section 158BC of the Act was questioned and therefore, there is no admitted tax liability under section 249(4)(a) of the Act. He would also strongly rely on a judgment of this court, reported in T. Govindappa Setty v. ITO [1998] 231 ITR 892 (Karn). He would also rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1991] 187 ITR 688. 6. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material on record. 7. Both the appellants have filed the return after the search and seizure in terms of the material on record. The returns wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause." 10. A reading of this section makes it very clear to us that admission of an appeal is subject to payment of tax due on the income returned and the same has been introduced, probably in the larger interest of the revenue collection by way of payment of admitted tax for the purpose of appeal. It is clear to us that the Commissioner (Appeals), after noticing the material aspects of the matter, has come to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable and therefore, did not admit the appeal as per the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act. 11. When the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has acce....