IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.11.2014 CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH T.C.(A).Nos.738 to 744 of 2014 B.Kishore Kumar Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle IV(1), Aaykar Bhavan 121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034. .. Respondent PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 5.6.2014 made in I.T.A.Nos.640 to 646/Mds/2014 for assessment years 2001-2002 to 2007-2008. For Appellant : Mr.B.Ramana Kumar For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) assessee has filed these appeals challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 5.6.2014 made in I.T.A.Nos.640 to 646/Mds/2014 for assessment years 2001-2002 to 2007-2008, by raising following substantial questions of law: (2) (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in law in dismissing appeals and not allowing matter to be remanded to respondent when additions made by him in appellant's case for relevant assessment years arise out of mere assumption? (ii)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in law in dismissing appeal when there has been clear insufficiency of time in providing reasonable opportunity to appellant while completing assessment under Section 153A read with Section 153C of Income Tax Act? (iii)Whether Tribunal having come to conclusion that assessment orders were passed at fag end of year without looking into search materials, ought to have remitted case to assessing officer rather than adjudicating case on merits? 2.1. brief facts of case are as under: On 29.8.2006, search was conducted at premises of appellant's father, wherein loose (3) sheets and notings on telephone diaries pertaining to assessee were found by department. 2.2. On 27.8.2008, notice under Section 153A read with Section 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, Act ) was issued to appellant for assessment years 2001-2002 to 2007-2008, namely, for seven years. In response to these notices, on 14.10.2008, appellant requested department to treat original returns filed by him as his returns in response to notices issued under Section 153A read with Section 153 of Act. Thereafter, on 12.11.2008, assessee filed revised returns for assessment year 2001-2002 and for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2007-2008, assessee filed revised returns on 16.12.2008. 2.3. Pursuant to same, assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A and 153C of Act was completed by Assessing Officer based on admission made by assessee during time of search and records seized. request of assessee to consider his objections was overturned by Assessing Officer saying that materials submitted at fag end of assessment could not be scrutinized, as notings in telephone diaries and loose sheets are unstructured and spread over without reference to time-frame. Assessing Officer was of view that assessment could be completed (4) based on admission of assessee in sworn statements made on 29.8.2006 and 10.10.2006. Assessing Officer came to conclusion that there is admission of undisclosed income to tune of Rs.52,73,920/- and on basis of documents and statements, he came to conclusion that further addition of Rs.30,00,000/- should be made. Therefore, total extent of undisclosed income was determined at Rs.87,08,136/- and penalty proceedings were also initiated separately. 2.4. Aggrieved by assessment orders, assessee preferred appeals before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed appeals. 2.5. Assailing said orders, assessee went on appeal before Tribunal, which dismissed appeals upholding orders passed by authorities below. 2.6. Calling into question said order, present appeals are filed by assessee on questions of law, referred supra. 3. Heard Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, learned counsel for assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for department and perused documents filed in support of these appeals. (5) 4. main grievance of assessee is that Tribunal has not considered his plea that Assessing Officer has not scrutinized materials submitted before him and made additions based on priori considerations. 5. We have perused orders passed by Tribunal and authorities below. Though assessee was at pains to make out issue that he has made certain submissions and those submissions were not considered by Assessing Officer and therefore, Assessing Officer has misdirected himself in determining tax liability, on going through order of Tribunal, we find that case of assessee was decided on basis of his own sworn statements dated 29.8.2006 and 10.10.2006 and admitted documents. We extract that portion of order as has been recorded by Assessing Officer in paragraph (11), which clinches whole issue: 11. Therefore, reliance is placed on admission of assessee at time of search, which is reproduced as under: Sworn statement of Shri Kishore Kumar dt. 29.8.2006: 'Qn.11: I am showing you three print-out of amounts totaling to Rs.52,73,920 (Rs.3,31,336 + Rs.15,05,158 + Rs.34,37,427). Please explain this? Ans: These are details of loans given by me to various parties as mentioned in printouts. (6) This is separate business carried out by me which was not included in income-tax returns filed by me. Qn.12: Please explain source for total outstanding amounts which are given by you? Ans: loans totaling to Rs.52,73,920 given to various parties as per list were from my undisclosed income. I agree to pay relevant income-tax dues for above declared undisclosed income.' Sworn statement of Shri Kishore Kumar dt. 10.10.2006 (in Tamil): 'Qn.1: I am showing you Ann/BL/B&D/S-3 and sl.No.5, which are telephone index books wherein amounts given in cash to various persons were found recorded. Whom do they belong to? In whose handwriting it is write? What do these amounts represent? Ans: They belong to me. Signature is mine and notings relate to loans given by me on various dates. This constitutes my separate finance business. There are no regular books for this. According to documents shown, as on date outstanding loans to be recovered is in range of Rs.25 Lakhs to 30 Lakhs. rate of interest is 18% (i.e. Rs.1.50 per 100 per month). interest income is also not shown in accounts. borrowers have committed defaults in repaying loans and more than 50% of outstandings are to be treated as bad (7) debts. All advances were not disclosed in returns filed.' This has been relied upon by Tribunal in full force. 6. With regard to undisclosed income of Rs.52,73,920/- supported by printouts, in sworn statement dated 29.8.2006, assessee says that he had separate business income which was not included in his income tax returns. Therefore, admission of undisclosed income of Rs.52,73,920/- is categoric and undisputed. assessee in sworn statement made on 10.10.2006, stated that outstanding loans to tune of Rs.25 Lakhs to 30 Lakhs are to be recovered with interest at rate of 18%. This is clear admission. This amount has also been calculated and added as undisclosed income. When there is clear and categoric admission of undisclosed income by assessee himself, in our considered opinion, there is no necessity to scrutinize documents. document can be of some relevance, if undisclosed income is determined higher than what is now determined by department. Moreover, it is not case of assessee that admission made by him was incorrect or there is mistake. In fact, when there is clear admission, voluntarily made, by assessee, that would constitute good piece of evidence for Revenue. 7. learned counsel for assessee relied upon decision of (8) Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Girish Chaudhary, [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers should not be taken as basis for determining undisclosed income. However, in case on hand, loose sheets found during search are not sole basis for determining tax liability. It is piece of evidence to prove undisclosed income. printout statements of undisclosed income is not disputed by assessee and in his sworn statements it is accepted. In fact, he admitted that outstanding loans to be recovered are in range of Rs.25 Lakhs to 30 Lakhs. We find no error in procedure followed by Assessing Officer on admitted facts. entire exercise by department to bring to tax undisclosed income, we find has been generous and simple. There appears to be no confusion in quantification of tax liability and we uphold order of Tribunal. For foregoing reasons, we dismiss these appeals. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 (6 Petitions) are closed. (R.S.J.) (R.K.J.) 3.11.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sasi To: 1. Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench "C", Chennai. (9) 2. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (Central)-I, Chennai. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-IV(1), Chennai. R.SUDHAKAR,J. and R.KARUPPIAH,J. (sasi) T.C.(A).Nos.738 to 744 of 2014 (10) 3.11.2014 B. Kishore Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central CircleIV(1), Chennai