COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. N. VELLAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the order of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 97/Mad/2001, dt. 17th May, 2005, the Revenue has preferred the appeal and raised the following substantial question of law : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the total amount of Rs. 4,49,568 declared as income for the asst. yrs. 1996 -97, 1997 -98 and 1998 -99, even though the assessee has not filed the returns of income within the dates but filed after the date of search in the computation of 'undisclosed income' is valid ?

(2.) THE Revenue is the appellant. This appeal relates to the block period from 1st April, 1988 to 9th Dec, 1998. There was a search conducted under Section 132 of the IT Act on 9th Dec, 1998 resulting in seizure of 724 gms. of jewellery valued at Rs. 2.69 lakhs and Kisan Vikas Patras to the value of Rs. 2.31 lakhs and other documents. The case of the assessee that while arriving at the gross total income, the gross total income should be reduced by the undisclosed income was negatived by the AO. The CIT(A) confirmed the view of the AO. The Tribunal, on appeal, following the decision of this Court in Asstt. CIT v. A.R. Enterprises : [2005]274ITR110(Mad) , remitted the matter back to the AO for the purpose of quantification of undisclosed income by taking into consideration the advance tax paid and to decide the issue. The said order of the Tribunal is put in issue in the present appeals.

(3.) IN view of the above settled law, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was right in remitting the matter back to the AO for the purpose of quantification of undisclosed income by taking into account the advance tax paid.