AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the amendment in law with retrospective effect, when search itself was illegal, how the assessee could have filed the return. 4. That ld. commissioner of income tax (appeals) has erred in holding that assessment proceedings and assessment order is well in order either from the angle of law or on facts. 5. That ld. commissioner of income tax (appeals) has erred in not deciding the ground raised relating to claim of the assessee that assessment being time barred without any sound reason/basis. 6. That ld. commissioner of income tax (appeals) has erred in not deciding the ground raised relating to claim or the assessee that assessment being bad in law because no search warrant was in the individual name of the assessee and accordingly assessment could not be made in individual capacity and in holding that case laws relied upon are not related to the case of the assessee. 7. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, submissions in assessment proceedings and in 1st appeal proceedings as well as statement of facts and grounds of appeal may kindly be considered as part of these grounds of appeal. 8. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dividual under the I.T. Act, 1961 for the block period 1.4.1997 to 24.04.2003 as mentioned in section 158B(a)of the I.T. Act, 1961 within 30 days of the service c\1f the notice. The notice was served on 17.12.2003. The assessee did no* file the return of income as required. They i.e. Smt Vijay Dhir, Shri Udgeeth Dhir and Shri Ushaht Dhir challenged the validity of action u/s 158BC in their oases and filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Allabahad High Court (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.284 of 2004) on 18.04.2004. The Hon'ble High Court ordered to; continue the assessment proceedings but no final order would be passed till decision of writ petitions. The assessees Smt Vijay Dhir, Shri Udgeeth Dhir and Shri Ushaht Dhir did not cooperated in the assessment proceedings. Respectfully following the directions of Hon'ble High Court an effort was made to continue the assessment proceedings in these cases but they did not cooperate in the assessment proceedings on the ground that they have challenged the jurisdiction u/s 158BC in their cases." The assessing officer had made the additions in the hands of the assessees. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assing the final order." It is undisputed fact that the cash of Rs. 21,00,000/- found in locker no. 645 is unexplained and It can be only in the knowledge of the Dhir family as to this cash belongs to whom. If this cash belongs to Dr. G.G. Dhir, it can be owned up by him during the proceeding before Hon'ble High Court and then the appeal filed by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court would become final and the amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- declared by the appellant would get automatically deleted as the same income cannot be taxed in two different hands. In view of above appeal filed by the Department, since charging of this amount to tax in the hand of Dr. G.G. Dhir on substantive basis has not reached finality due to pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, this amount would be considered to be taxed in the hands of appellant on protective basis till a final decision is taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court with regard to charging of this amount to tax in the hand of Dr.G.G. Dhir. If this amount is decided to be taxed in the hand of Dr. G.G. Dhir, this amount would automatically get deleted in the hand of the appellant, otherwise this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... however, all the above reasons as given by the Ld. AR at the end of the hearing were again considered. The notice u/s 158BC was issued to the appellant on 16.10.2003 and he was given time of 30 days since the date of service of notice for filing of return of undisclosed income and this notice was served on 18.10.2003 therefore, the appellant was required to file his return of income by 18.11.2003. However, instead of filing of return of undisclosed income in time, the appellant under the advice of his counsel decided to challenge the validity of notice u/s 158BC on the ground of invalidity of search warrant and even for filing of Writ Petition, he took about 3 month time because the Writ Petition was filed on 18.02.2004. Later, this Writ Petition of the appellant was dismissed because it was filed on wrong interpretation of the provisions relating to search and seizure operation. Though it is correct that for final disposal of Writ Petition of the appellant, it took about 6 years, the fact is that the operation of the notice u/s 158BC dt. 16.10.2003 issued to the appellant was never stayed by the Hon'ble High Court during the pendency of decision on his Writ Petition because i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of filing of affidavit when he owned up the cash of Rs. 21,00,000/- to prevent the Department to tax this amount in the hand of his father Dr. G.G. Dhir. Though the Department did not rely on his affidavit and made addition in the hand of Dr. G.G. Dhir, the Hon'ble Tribunal deleted this addition taking cognisance of this affidavit. The Ld. AR's contention was that this addition was deleted in the hand of Dr. G.G. Dhir because the locker was owned up by the appellant and the Tribunal deleted the addition on the condition that an enquiry has to be made and addition should be made after enquiry in the hand of the persons to whom the locker belonged and since no enquiry was made by the AO before making addition of the amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- in the hand of the appellant and he just accepted this amount as declared by him which as per him was under protest, assessment of this amount in the hand of the appellant is not justified. Such argument of the Ld. AR clearly shows that since beginning, it is being tried to make contrary claims with respect to this amount to prevent this amount getting taxed in appropriate hand, though it is undisputed fact that this amount is unexplain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trary to any bonafide cause on the part of appellant for such delay, I find that the appellant has deliberately delayed filing of return by making contradictory claims about the taxability of the amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- which was seized from locker no. 645. Therefore, I find that delay in filing of return is attributable to the appellant and hence, he is very much liable for paying interest u/s 158BFA(1) as computed by the AO in the assessment order and hence, all the three grounds i.e. Ground nos 1,2 and 3 taken by the appellant disputing levy of interest u/s 158BFA(1) are dismissed. As regards to various case laws cited by the Ld.AR as discussed in para nos. 5.1 to 5.3, these case laws are found to be either pertaining to not charging of interest u/s 234A or not charging of interest u/s 158BFA(1) when delay in filing of return or not attributable to the assessee due to delay in receiving photocopies of seized documents from the Department. I have already discussed in details in this order that charging of interest u/s 158BFA(1) is not similar to charging of interest u/s 234A and there is no delay in supplying seized documents to the appellant from the date of application given ....