COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JUGAL KISHORE GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Tribunal dt. 21st April, 2006 arising from the appeal No. 699/Luck/2002.

(2.) THE opposite party assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was a partner in a firm M/s Sasta Vastra Bhandar. A search and seizure was conducted by the IT officials on 9th Feb., 2000 at the residential premises of the assessee as a result of which the proceeding under Section 158BC was initiated asking the assessee to file the return of the undisclosed income for the period of the asst. yrs. 1990 -91, 1991. -92, 1994 -95, 1995 -96 and 1996 -97. The claim of the assessee was that the total income for the aforesaid period was Rs. 2,22,365 comprising of income of Rs. 30,770 for the asst. yr. 1990 -91, Rs. 47,640 for the asst. yr. 1991 -92, Rs. 47,410 for the asst. yr. 1994 -95, Rs. 52,725 for the asst. yr. 1995 -96 and Rs. 43,820 for the asst. yr. 1996 -97. The assessee could not file the return as the income in each year was below the taxable limit and as such there was no obligation under Section 139(1) to file the return. It was also submitted that M/s Sasta Vastra Bhandar was the IT assessee and assessed to tax for the aforesaid years and in the balance sheet and the capital accounts of the partners, the income from the share income and interest income was disclosed and in this view of the matter there was no undisclosed income. The assessee had made investment in Kisan Vikas Patra in his own name and in the name of family members. The assessee admitted the investments made in Kisan Vikas Patra in his own name and in the name of wife and other family members as undisclosed income and accordingly filed the block return of the undisclosed income for Rs. 5,10,400.

(3.) HEARD Sri D.D. Chopra, learned senior standing Counsel of the Revenue and Sri Ratnesh Chandra appearing on behalf of assessee.