COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. VIMLA KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short "the Act"), filed by the Commissioner of the Income-tax, Bhopal, against the order dated December 11, 2000, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act were carried out during October 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, 1986 to October 18, 1996, i. e. , for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98 (up to October 18, 1996) determining the total undisclosed income of Rs. 3,34,273. Aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (for short, "the Tribunal" ). By order dated December 11, 2000, the Tribunal inter alia held that the assessment is to be made by a regular Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over the assessee and the ACIT (Investigation) had no jurisdiction to make this assessment and accordingly annulled the assessment. The Tribunal also, inter alia, held that since the total income of the respondent remained below the taxable income after deduction claimed under Section 80l of the Act, she was not required to file return under Section 139 (1) of the Act for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1989-90 to 1996-97 and her income was not to be treated as undisclosed income of the block period and directed the Assessing Officer accordingly.

(3.) ON December 6, 2005, the court after hearing Mr. Rohit Arya, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. P. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent, formulated the following four substantial questions of law for decision in this appeal: