COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. MAYA CHOTRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal. It is not in dispute that search and seizure operations were carried out in the month of October, 1996. During the course of search and seizure operations at the various residential premises, certain incriminating documents pertaining to Smt. Maya Chotrani were seized. Action under Section 158bc of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was initiated in her case. It is also not disputed that Smt. Maya Chotrani is a NRI resident of Dubai. No search was conducted at her premises.

(2.) ASSESSMENT under Section 158bd, read with Section 143 (3) of the Act for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 was completed on November 30, 1998, determining total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 5,06,380. An order (annexure A) was passed by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle-I, Bhopal. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench. The learned Tribunal as per order (annexure B), dated March 23, 2001, set aside the order on the ground that the Assessing Officer/assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle-I, Bhopal, had no jurisdiction, the assessment should have been framed by the regular Assessing Officer having jurisdiction under Section 158bd of the Act. It was directed that the relevant material be handed over to the concerned Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over such other person. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, this appeal has been preferred. It has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law as per order dated October 29, 2001:

(3.) SUBSTANTIAL questions of law Nos. (ii) and (iii) are covered by judgment of this Court in M. A. I. T. No. 7 of 2001, decided on January 25, 2006 CIT v. Vimla Khatri [2007] 288 ITR 168 (MP) is not disputed at the Bar. The questions have been decided against the Revenue, consequently for the reasons stated in the judgment dated January 25, 2006, passed in M. A. I. T. No. 7 of 2001, the substantial questions of law Nos. (ii) and (iii) are answered against the appellant.