COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. T.AHOBALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Inccme Tax Act. 1961 (in short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench, Bangalore made in IT(SS)A No. 103 Bang/2004 wherein the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) for the block assessment year 01.04.1995 to 07.06.2001.

(2.) A search was conducted in the residential premises of the respondent -assessee on 07.06.2001 under Section 132 of the Act. During the course of search, many incriminating documents evidencing the assessee doing business in the money lending were found and the documents are seized. By the said business, the assessee has earned substantial income, which was never disclosed since the assessee was never assessed to the tax and no declaration has been filed by the assessee.

(3.) SRI .Indrakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.E.I.Sanmathi contended that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law. Though the assessee was doing money -lending business, he has not filed his returns. The assessee does not have money -lending license though he has been in the business of advancing monies and earning huge interest. The seized documents clearly disclose the day -to -day transactions. However, there is no entry with regard to irrevocable debts. Further no document has been produced before the Authorities to show that there is disruption in HUF and partition of the joint family properties. The partition deed is net registered documents. In the absence of the same, HUF is responsible to pay the tax and undisclosed income has to be brought to tax since the HUF continued to be in existence. The Appellate Tribunal without taking into consideration all these documents set aside the order, which is contrary to law.