- (1.) TRIBUNAL , Chandigarh Bench 'B', in respect of block period commencing 1986 -87 to 1996 -97, proposing following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 53,609 against the declared income of Rs. 16,000 which was recorded income in the books of accounts and the date of (ii) Whether, the amounts of gifts received by the minor sons duly accounted for in the books amounting to Rs. 88,840 and where interest earned on the same was duly disclosed and assessed in asst. yrs. 1994 -95 and 1995 -96 in the hands of the applicant under s. 64(1A) of IT Act, 1961 could still remain undisclosed as per the provisions of s. 158B(b), if no then whether the addition, if any, could be made under s. 143(3) under such circumstances and not under the provision of Chapter XIV -B ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 70,000 as undisclosed income despite the fact that it was received as a gift from a known and genuine source and further this amount was duly recorded in the account books of the firm of the appellant and if any such addition was to be made the same should have been made under s. 68 of the IT Act whereas it has been made under s. 69 of IT Act which are not interchargeable ? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 as unexplained household expenses despite the fact that this addition was made without any material or evidence in hand ? (v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in upholding the cash to the tune of Rs. 13,845 as unexplained cash found during the search operations despite the fact that it was properly explained by the appellant terming the same to be savings of his wife and children -
(2.) AT the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee made submissions only with reference to proposed questions (i) to (iii). We will, therefore, deal with the said submissions only.
(3.) MADE which was challenged by the assessee. Re : Q. No. (i) The finding of the Tribunal on this question is as under : From the expression 'block period' and 'the previous years' appearing in s. 158B(a) the period mentioned in the word 'block period' means the period of 10 previous years relevant to 10 assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted. The 'previous year' further includes the period in which the search was conducted upto period of the instant case of the assessee, as per s. 158BA(2), the total undisclosed income relating to the block period irrespective of the fact whether regular assessment for anyone or more of the relevant assessment years is pending or not. In the light of these provisions, as discussed hereinabove, the argument of the assessee's counsel, that the AO was that even if this income was estimated for the said period it should be clubbed in the return to be filed for asst. yr. 1996 -97 and the normal rate of tax should have been charged instead of 60 per cent have no force and accordingly these arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee, having no force, are rejected and as a consequence of the same, the assessee having failed to explain with the documentary evidence as to why he declared the income at Rs. shown the net profit at Rs. 53,609 we hold that the assessing authority was fully justified in taking the undisclosed income at Rs. 53,609 instead of Rs. 16,000, as disclosed by the assessee, for the current asst. yr. 1996 -97 as on 23rd;