RAJESH MAHAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) The Appellant is an individual. He is a partner in M/s. Mahajan Exports, Panipat, and M/s. Maspar, Panipat. He derives business income, income from salary and income from house property. A search was conducted under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act', for short] at his residential premises and business premises. It got concluded on 10th November, 2000. Subsequently, notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued to him on 5th February, 2003, asking him to furnish Return of Income for Block Assessment period. The Appellant declared the total undisclosed income at 'nil' on 20th February, 2003. Consequently, the Assessing Officer undertook assessment proceedings, in pursuance of search and seizure, in which the Appellant was represented by his authorised representative. After verifying the details filed by the Appellant, the Block Assessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer at the total undisclosed income as 'nil' [See Order dated 3rd September, 2003]. The said order of the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC of the Act was set aside by Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act with a direction to make the assessment de novo on the points enumerated in Synopsis 'C' to the special leave petition. This Order of Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act was set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['ITAT', for short] observing that the Appellant had filed detailed explanation and supporting evidence on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had made due enquiries while passing Order dated 3rd September, 2003, after obtaining necessary approval of his superior officer under Section 158BC of the Act. The order of ITAT was challenged by the Department before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide I.T.A. No. 383 of 2006 under Section 260A of the Act. The High Court, vide it's impugned judgment, has set aside the Order of ITAT. However, it appears from the record that the Appellant was not heard by the High Court, which over-ruled the decision of ITAT. The review application was also dismissed by the High Court.