TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nse to notice u/s 158BC, he filed 'Nil' return of income. The Tribunal, vide IT(SS)A No. 193/Mds/97, detailed order dated 14-10-2003, after considering assessee's submissions as well as additional evidences filed by the assessee, reduced the taxable income of Rs. 540.07 Lacs to Rs. 64.98 Lacs. The assessee as well as department assailed this order before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in TCA No. 686 of 2005 and 2 of 2009 dated 27.03.2012. 2. The Hon'ble Court, vide paras-8 to 12 of the order noted that since it was a block assessment, the assessee could file appeal only before Tribunal since there was no provision to file appeal before CIT(A) at relevant point of time. Under these circumstances, Rule 46A could not be pressed in to service. However, as per Rule 29, Tribunal may allow production of additional evidences upon being satisfied subject to the condition that Tribunal should afford sufficient opportunity to the revenue to rebut those additional evidences. Therefore, the objection raised by revenue for admission of additional evidences by Tribunal was dismissed. In paras 14 and 15, the Hon'ble Court also noted the nature of documents furnished by the assessee before Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(2) calling for requisite details from the assessee. The statement of the assessee was recorded on various occasions starting from 13-11- 2015 onwards. The assessee filed additional evidences in the form of paper-book containing 316 pages. Some more documents were filed on 09-12-2015. The assessee's representative appeared on 11-12-2015 and submitted paper-book (explanation with evidences containing 264 pages). Various other submissions and documents were filed from time to time in support of the case and final hearing took place on 23-12- 2015. In para-7, Ld. AO noted as under: - During the course present proceedings on various dates, the assessee and the Authorised representative appeared on various dates discussed above and submitted the paper book containing additional evidence (pages 1 to 316) filed before the Hon'ble ITAT - attested copy of the charge sheet filed by the DVAC before the Session Court cum Special Judge, Chennai, copy of the order of Special court in case No. 2/2003 both in Tamil version and translated English version, copy of the bail order, copy of the order for release obtained from Special Court (bail for assessment), copy of statement recorded by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee read as under: - 1.1 The impugned assessment order is not sustainable in law as the same is not in consonance with the specific directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal while remitting the matter to the assessing authority. 1.2 The impugned assessment order is not sustainable in law as the same has been made without application of mind and without appreciating the submissions of the assessee despite specific written submissions in reply to the show cause notice of the AO. 1.3 The AO failed to note that the assessee had filed evidences of the state revenue authorities before this Hon'ble Tribunal to show and prove his agriculture income and also the source of investments of other persons whose income and investments were sought to be included as that of the assessee, based on which this Hon'ble Tribunal deleted those additions. 1.4 The impugned assessment order, as admitted in the order itself, is only a repetition and reiteration of the earlier block assessment Order passed in flagrant inconsistency to the proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal and is hence liable to be quashed in toto. 1.5 The AO failed to note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Government of Tamil Nadu and went wrong in ignoring the order of the trial judge in its totality. 2.Cash found at the time of search -Rs. 9,02,150 The AO erred in treating the entire cash found of Rs. 9,02,150 as the undisclosed income of the assessee, without considering the explanation offered and the evidences let in to prove the agricultural income earned by the assessee. 3. Gold jewellery - Rs. 10,21,946 The AO equally went wrong in treating a sum of Rs. 10,21,946, being the value of gold jewellery found as undisclosed income of the assessee, without considering the explanation offered. 4.Silver Jewellery - Rs. 81,088 Similarly, the AO erred in treating a sum of Rs. 81,088 being the value of silver articles found as undisclosed income of the assessee ignoring the explanation offered. 5.Diamond Jewellery - Rs. 80,000 The AO equally went wrong in treating a sum of Rs. 80,000/- being the value of diamond jewellery found as undisclosed income of the assessee, ignoring the explanation offered. 6.House hold Articles - Rs. 2,50,000 The AO erred in treating the value of household article....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. 13.2 The AO went wrong in treating the interest on the fixed deposit made by A.G. Chittibabu of Rs.1,47,630/-, Rs.1,33,195/-, Rs.1,81,657 and Rs.20,831 for the A.Ys:1994- 95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 as the undisclosed income of the assessee, 13.3 The AO went wrong in treating the interest on the fixed deposit made by A.A. Govindarajan of Rs.1,36,270/-, Rs.1,27,953/-, Rs.1,67,684 and Rs.19,227 for the A.Ys:1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 as the undisclosed income of the assessee. 13.4 The AO went wrong in treating the interest of Rs.25/- on the savings bank a/c balance of A.G. Chittibabu and Rs.25/- on the savings bank a/c balance of A.A. Govindarajan as the undisclosed income of the assessee. 14. Deposits into Bank alc of P.Krishnan & K.Ramakrishnan 14.1 The AO erred in treating a sum of Rs.13,00,100/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- in SB A/C No.11547 of P.Krishnan with Bank of Baroda, Kulumani branch as undisclosed income of the assessee for the A.Yrs:199394, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98 respectively. 14.2 The AO equally went wrong in treating a sum of Rs.55,368/-, Rs.86,802/and Rs.57,819/- being the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18. Investment in immovable properties by various persons and income therefrom. 18.1 The AO went wrong in treating the following investments as that of the assessee: A. House property at Fern Hill by 6 people Rs.22,01,037 B. Investment in purchase of Property at Kumaran Nagar Trichy by 3 Persons Rs.24,34,800 C. Land at Manikandam Village by 4 persons Rs. 8,75,150 D. Plot at Anna Nagar, Trichy by K.P.Balakrishnan & Poongundrum Rs. 7 ,21,200 E. Land at Vadagaunchi Village by Selvi Kanagavalli &5 others Rs.13,21,470 F. Flat at No.9/4, Nehru Nagar, Adayar by Chittibabu Rs. 9,05,400 G.Purchase of flat No.9/3, Nehru Nagar, Adayar by Malliga Krishnan Rs.6,59,900 Purchase of agricultural land of 1 Acre &80 cents at Kulumani Village by Poongundrum Rs.90,000 Total 18.2 The AO went wrong in estimating and treating various sums as property income from the property at Fern hill, Kodaikanal; property at Bankers Colony, Kumaran Nagar, Tiruchy, and the two flats at Nehru Nagar, Adyar as that of the assessee. 19. Investment in Residential house at Kulumani Nagar Trichy Rs.11,94,000 The AO went wron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.20,000 1988-89 Rs.25,000 1989-90 Rs.30,000 1990-91 Rs.35,000 1991-92 Rs.50,000 1992-93 Rs.1,00,000 1993-94 Rs.1,50,000 1994-95 Rs.2,00,000 1995-96 Rs.2,50,000 1996-97 Rs.3,00,000 1997-98 (upto 17.07.96) Rs.1,00,000 Total Rs.12,60,000 25.Donation to AIADMK party - Rs.10,00,000 The AO went wrong in treating the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as donation to AIADMK party as undisclosed income of the assessee. 26.Payment made to Jaya Publications - Rs. 20,000 The AO erred in treating a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the payment made to Jaya Publications as undisclosed income of the assessee. 27. Salary income - Rs.2,24,600 The AO went wrong in treating the salary received by the appellant as his undisclosed income ignoring the fact that this source of income had already been disclosed to the department. A.Y: Amount 1992 - 93 Rs.24,600 1993 - 94 Rs.36,000 1994- 95 Rs.41,500 1995 - 96 Rs,53,000 1996 - 97 Rs.59,500 1997- 98 Rs.10,000 Total Rs. 2,24,600 28. Fixation of agricultural income of assessee 28.1 The AO went ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emain no case for the department to make impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. The final order passed by Hon'ble Court read as under: - 09. Punishment or order: In the result the charges against the first accused under Section 13(3) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Charges against the accused 2 to 9 u/s 109 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act have not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt through exhibits and evidences and a judgment is delivered by acquitting the first accused from the charges punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the accused 2 to 9 are acquitted from the charges punishable u/s 109 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act as per provisions of 248(1) Cr. P.C. The 4th accused died during the pendency of this case and hence order is passed holding that the charges against her are terminated. It is further ordered to destroy the M.O.1 to M.O.33 after the appeal time. Arguments of Ld. AR 5.1 The assessee has filed detailed written submissions on 28.11.2019. The paper-books containing various documents, submissions, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. Jayachandran & Others (406 ITR 1) observing as under: - 12. Further, while considering the claim of the Respondent and the view of the Assessing Officer, how the bank itself had treated the Respondent, is a matter of relevance. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act are independent proceedings and the High Court committed a grave error in relying on the findings of the criminal Court. We do not find any force in the contention of the appellant herein as the High Court has not held that the findings of the criminal court are binding on the Revenue authorities. Rather the High Court was of the view that the findings arrived at by the criminal court can be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to the relationship between the parties to the case. When the findings are arrived by a criminal court on the evidence and the material placed on record then in absence of anything shown to the contrary, there seems to be no reason as to why these duly proved evidence should not be relied upon by the Court. The High Court has specifically appraised the findings given by the CBI Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... done only by the AO and not by the Appellate Tribunal, in the pending appeal the evaluation carried out on these additional evidences before the Special Court may be taken note and relied upon in respect of those additions made, which are referable to those additional evidences. (b) Inasmuch as the High Court has not interdicted on the judgement of this Hon'ble Tribunal in respect of those editions where the reference to any additional evidence is not involved, the benefit of the judgement of the Hon'ble Tribunal rendered on judicial principles should be made available to me in this appeal. (c) The principles of law laid down in the matters connected with block assessment is to be applied in the pending appeal in respect of those additions which do not have any reference to search material and even assuming without conceding that there were materials during the search relating to those additions, then, the procedure laid down under chapter XIV-B of the act should be applied for the assessment and the disposal of the appeal thereto to be in accordance with law as directed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as by this Hon'ble Tribunal. (d) As these submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. From the fact, it emerges that Ld. AO made various additions in the first assessment order passed on 31-07-1997 and determined total income of the assessee at Rs. 540.07 Lacs. The Tribunal, vide detailed order dated 14.10.2003, after appreciating the assessee's submissions as well as additional evidences, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 64.98 Lacs. The copy of the order is on record. Upon further appeals by the assessee as well as revenue, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in TCA No. 686 of 2005 and 2 of 2009 dated 27.03.2012, held that as per Rule 29, Tribunal may allow production of additional evidences upon being satisfied subject to the condition that Tribunal should afford sufficient opportunity to the revenue to rebut those additional evidences. The rebuttal of evidences should have been by Assessing Officer who would be in a better position to verify the genuineness of those documents. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was restored to Ld. AO to consider the documents filed as additional evidences by the assessee and pass fresh order. 9. Pursuant to the same, another assessment was framed by Ld. AO on 28.03.2013 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llery, the bench sustained addition to the extent of Rs. 1338.100 grams valuing at Rs. 4.68 Lacs. The addition of Silver Jewellery for Rs. 0.81 Lacs and Diamond Jewellery for Rs. 0.80 Lacs was deleted. The addition of Household articles and vehicles aggregating to Rs. 11.65 Lacs was deleted on the ground that all the things found in the premises of the assessee could not be attributed to the assessee's undisclosed income without any discrimination. The addition of fire-arms for Rs. 1.00 Lacs was reduced to Rs. 0.68 Lacs after allowing cost of purchase of fire-arms. The addition of blank promissory notes for Rs. 10 Lacs was sustained for want of evidences. The addition of deposits held in the name of Shri K. Ramakrishnan for Rs. 7.01 Lacs, deposit of Rs. 40 Lacs held in the name of Paramasivam and Periyakka as well as deposit held in the name of Selvi Palaniammal for Rs. 11.33 Lacs was deleted since the same was considered under total amount of Rs. 49.90 Lacs found in the accounts of different persons and AO had treated all those accounts as relating to the assessee. The bench confirmed the addition of Rs. 49.90 Lacs on the ground that the assessee took different stands at different....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducation expenses and family expenses for Rs. 12.60 Lacs was deleted since the same was purely on estimation basis. The addition of House Property income for Rs. 6.79 Lacs was also deleted. The addition of election expenses and donation etc. aggregating to Rs. 14.35 Lacs was also deleted since the payments were made by the assessee in the status as politician and the amount was collected from party workers. Finally, the income of Rs. 540.07 Lacs as determined by Ld. AO was reduced to Rs. 64.98 Lacs as is evident from para 44 of the order as placed on record. We find that in the present proceedings, the impugned order is guided by the original assessment framed by Ld. AO and the assessee is in further appeal before us wherein the assessee relies on same documents as well as evidences filed before Tribunal in the first round. 12. Upon perusal of aforesaid order of Tribunal in first round, it could thus be seen that detailed factual findings have been rendered by Tribunal on each of the issue after appreciating the assessee's submissions as well as evidences filed by the assessee before the bench. The same documents were placed by the assessee before Ld. AO in the present proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000 NIL 10,00,000 334 & 335 No 10 Claim by the assessee of cash left by deceased father Expl offered was not considered NIL 49,90,000 & 26,070/- 336 & 337 No Account in Bank of Baroda, Dindigul in the names of Rajendran, Selvam & Thangavelu-outsiders & interest of Rs.26,070/- 49,90,000 No 11 Deposits in the name of Paramasivam and Periyakka - father & mother of assessee 40,00,000 40,00,000 In view of confirmation of 49.90 lakhs this separate addition was deleted 337-338 No 12 Deposit in the name of Selvi Palaniammal- relative of assessee 11,33,814 11,33,814 NIL 338-339 YES 13 Fixed Deposits in the name of AA Govindarajan and A.G.Chittibabu -father-in-law & brother in law of assessee 34,34,894 34,34,894 NIL 339-341 YES 14.1 & 14.2 Deposits in the name of P. Krishnan 53,86,498 53,86,498 NIL 341 & 342 No 14.3 -14.5 Deposits in the name of K. Ramakrishnan 54,93,133 54,93, 133 NIL 342 & 343 No 15 Credits in the bank account of assessee 3 accounts (ADMK) 32,75,535 32,75,535 NIL 3....