- (1.) In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the challenge is to the order dated 20.01.2006 passed in I.T.A. NO. 70/Pat/2004 for the block period 90-91 to 2000-01.
(2.) A search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential premises of the respondent-assessee at Ranchi and Delhi on 13.01.2000 under Section 132(1) of the Act. During the search and seizure certain loose sheets and documents were found and those were seized. Those documents indicated assessee's investment in immoveable properties and foreign exchange dealings. A notice under section 158BC of the Act was issued on 15.09.2000 and served on the assessee requiring him to file a true and correct return of the total income. The assessee filed his return for the block period 01.04.1999 to 13.01.2000 by indicating that the total undisclosed income is Rs. 5,17,000/- Thereafter, the assessing officer took up the assessment and determined the total income for the block period at Rs. 4,98,47,849/-. A sum of Rs. 69,23,564/- has been lessened as per Section 158BC of the income disclosed in the return of the income filed before search
(3.) The assessee being dissatisfied preferred an appeal.The appellate authority dealing with the factum of deduction under Section 158BC of the Act held as follows: "22. I have considered the facts relating to this asset. I have also perused the case laws cited by the appellant and also the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay reported at 247 ITR 448. However, even before considering the merit of the issue, I find that the asset has been declared by the appellant in his regular return for the related year. His two sons have shown this asset in their returns for AY 1998-99 which were filed before the search. Certificate u/s 230A was applied for before the search and was obtained. This asset was not, therefore, undisclosed nor was is detected as a result of the search. This asset, therefore, has to be considered in the regular assessments of the concerned persons and cannot be considered in block assessment following the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of LR Gupta V/s. Union of India, 194 ITR 32 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Kedia V/s. CIT, 2001 248 ITR 562. In this view of the matter, so far as this block assessment is concerned, the addition of Rs. 41,85,000/- is deleted. 23. Similarly, the additions relating to properties at Sainik Farm Meharauli (Rs. 43,55,000/-), B-30, Swami Nagar, New Delhi (Rs. 2,94,43,425/-), E-195, Greater Kailash, New Delhi (Rs. 1,00,000/-), B-41 & 42, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi (Rs. 4,35,160/-) and 61B, Sainik Farm, New Delhi (Rs.24,41,700/-) are also deleted from this block assessment as these assets have been declared to the Department before the search and as the same have to be examined in regular assessments.";