CIT v. Jupiter Builders (P) Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2006 TaxPub(DT) 1861 (Del-HC) : (2006) 287 ITR 0287 : (2006) 205 CTR 0553 : (2006) 156 TAXMAN 0361 CIT v. Jupiter Builders (P) Ltd. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Search and seizure - Block Assessment -Undisclosed income In consequence to search conducted upon assessee, a notice under section 158BC was issued to assessee. During course of block assessment, AO made additions on account of as undisclosed income. Held: Those elements of income which already stand disclosed in relevant assessment years falling within block period should be excluded while computing undisclosed income and thus, AO had placed no evidence in support of additions made and whereas relevant expenses/income had been duly reflected and disclosed in course of regular assessment proceedings, and therefore it could not be said to be undisclosed income of assessee. Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 158B A.Y. : Block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 Decision: In favour of assessee Case Law Analysis:N.R. Paper & Board Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 733/ 101 Taxman 525 (Guj.) [Para 9], Dr. C. Balakrishna Nair v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 70/ 103 Taxman 242 (Ker.) [Para 9], CIT v. Shambhulal C. Bachkaniwala [2000] 108 Taxman 575 (Guj.) [Para 9], Smt. Sheela Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 5602 and 5604 of 1996, dated 20-3-1998] [Para 9], CIT v. N.R. Papers & Boards Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 526/[2000] 148 Taxman 536 (Guj.) [Para 29], CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Gupta [2001] 248 ITR 350/ 117 Taxman 507 (Raj.) [Para 30], Malayil Bankers v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 869/ 103 Taxman 117 (Ker.) [Para 31], N.T. John v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 314/ 90 Taxman 483 (Ker.) [Para 31], Raja Ram Kulwant Rai v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 187/[1998] 98 Taxman 279 (Punj. & Har.) [Para 31], Dr. Mrs. Alaka Goswami v. CIT [2004] 268 ITR178/ 138 Taxman 212 (Gauhati) [Para 33], CIT v. Vishal Aggarwal [2005] 147 Taxman 597 (Delhi) [Para 34], CIT v. Sudhish Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 563/ 146 Taxman 612 (Delhi) [Para 38] and CIT v. Manoj Jain [2006] 200 CTR 327 (Delhi) [Para 38]. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2006 TaxPub(DT) 1861 (Del-HC) : (2006) 287 ITR 0287 : (2006) 205 CTR 0553 : (2006) 156 TAXMAN 0361

CIT v. Jupiter Builders (P) Ltd.

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Search and seizure - Block Assessment -Undisclosed income

In consequence to search conducted upon assessee, a notice under section 158BC was issued to assessee. During course of block assessment, AO made additions on account of as undisclosed income. Held: Those elements of income which already stand disclosed in relevant assessment years falling within block period should be excluded while computing undisclosed income and thus, AO had placed no evidence in support of additions made and whereas relevant expenses/income had been duly reflected and disclosed in course of regular assessment proceedings, and therefore it could not be said to be undisclosed income of assessee.

Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 158B

A.Y. : Block period 1987-88 to 1997-98
Decision: In favour of assessee

Case Law Analysis:N.R. Paper & Board Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 733/ 101 Taxman 525 (Guj.) [Para 9], Dr. C. Balakrishna Nair v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 70/ 103 Taxman 242 (Ker.) [Para 9], CIT v. Shambhulal C. Bachkaniwala [2000] 108 Taxman 575 (Guj.) [Para 9], Smt. Sheela Aggarwal v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 5602 and 5604 of 1996, dated 20-3-1998] [Para 9], CIT v. N.R. Papers & Boards Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 526/[2000] 148 Taxman 536 (Guj.) [Para 29], CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Gupta [2001] 248 ITR 350/ 117 Taxman 507 (Raj.) [Para 30], Malayil Bankers v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 869/ 103 Taxman 117 (Ker.) [Para 31], N.T. John v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 314/ 90 Taxman 483 (Ker.) [Para 31], Raja Ram Kulwant Rai v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 187/[1998] 98 Taxman 279 (Punj. & Har.) [Para 31], Dr. Mrs. Alaka Goswami v. CIT [2004] 268 ITR178/ 138 Taxman 212 (Gauhati) [Para 33], CIT v. Vishal Aggarwal [2005] 147 Taxman 597 (Delhi) [Para 34], CIT v. Sudhish Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 563/ 146 Taxman 612 (Delhi) [Para 38] and CIT v. Manoj Jain [2006] 200 CTR 327 (Delhi) [Para 38].