COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. VIMAL CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals filed under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) arise under similar circumstances. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) THE Revenue is the appellant. The respondents are the assesses under the Act. The searches were conducted on 30.11.1996 for the preceding ten years. In the course of block assessment, it was found that the respondents have paid advance tax for some assessment years, but did not file returns. The assessing officer took the view that the income for the corresponding years for which the returns were not filed partakes the character of undisclosed income and accordingly tax was levied. Aggrieved by that and other measures taken by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in the respective orders of assessment, the respondents preferred the appeals before the Tribunal. Through its orders under appeals, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondents, namely, that the failure to file a return by the assessee, who paid the advance tax, cannot lead to a situation of treating the income as the undisclosed one. Reliance was placed upon an order passed by itself in relation to another case. On certain other aspects, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondents.

(3.) THE principal contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that the view taken by the Tribunal, as to the manner in which the income of an assessee for an assessment year as regard which the returns were not filed, albeit the advance tax paid, is contrary to law. It is urged that the failure to file income tax return may itself lead to the conclusion of non -disclosure of income for the corresponding year and mere payment of the advance tax does not change the situation. Reliance is also placed upon the recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.R.Shah and others.