DY CIT Vs. LATE RATAN LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only issue in this departmental appeal relates to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has been correct in considering the question of charging of interest under section 158BFA(1) and in restoring the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh consideration.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the premises of Late Ratan Lal Jain on 7 -8 -1997. A notice was issued by the assessing officer under section 158BC on 5 -11 -1997, asking the assessee to produce his block return of undisclosed income in relation to the search. The said notice was served on the assessee on 7 -11 -1977. The assessee requested the assessing officer repeatedly to provide the xerox copies of the seized documents so that he might be able to file his return of undisclosed income. The said copies were not provided to the assessing officer for a long time. Ultimately, however, the assessing officer agreed to provide photocopies of the seized documents to the assessee on 28 -9 -1998. Meanwhile, however, the assessee, Shri Ratan Lal Jain had died on 20 -8 -1998.

(3.) THE Commissioner (Appeals) thereafter discusses that the photocopies of the seized documents were provided to the assessee on 4 -11 -1998, and, therefore, the legal heir of the assessee got time of further thirty days therefrom to file the block return. The Commissioner (Appeals) mentions that the amount of Rs. 25,00,000 having been deposited, meanwhile against the probable demand likely to arise in respect of the undisclosed income. Ultimately, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered it fit to refer the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for scrutinizing as to how and when and in what manner the xerox copies had been supplied by the department to the assessee/his successors and whether whatever had been supplied were enough for the successors of the assessee to file return of income for the block period. The Commissioner (Appeals) furthermore held that if it be demonstrated by the successors of the assessee before the assessing officer that the delay was not attributable to the assessee, then as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court (as cited above), the delay would have to be condoned.