ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA 51 of 2003 SMT. ANURADHA MODI Versus C. I. T., CENTRAL - II, KOLKATA BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 18th February, 2015. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. for appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. for respondent Court : subject matter of challenge in this appeal is judgment and order dated 28th June, 2002 by which learned Tribunal upheld addition made by assessing officer as follows: next ground of appeal is relating to addition to Rs.3,21,920/- on account of certain deposits including interest of Rs.920/-. additions have been made in respect of certain deposits made in bank accounts detected during course of search. explanation furnished by assessee have not been found satisfactory. There is no 2 improvement before us in this regard. addition of Rs.3,24,000/- on account of bank deposits is thus justified and accordingly upheld. Mr. Sen, learned advocate appearing for appellant, drew our attention to paragraph 34 of impugned judgment which reads as follows: In this assessment year, addition of Rs.1,95,000/- was made on account of cash deposit of Rs.10,000/- on 9.5.04, Rs.1,80,000/- on 9.5.94 and Rs.6,000/- on 20.7.94 in undisclosed bank account of assessee. assessee had explained and these deposits with reference to certain loans from various companies. A.O. found that in original returns filed by such companies, no such loans were reflected. However, subsequently such companies had offered deposits for assessment under settlement petition under I.T. Act. petitions of those companies, it is stated, have been admitted. fate of Settlement Applications is not known. This issue is, accordingly, set aside to file of A.O. with direction to reconsider addition on basis of any final decision by Settlement Commission in case of creditor companies. He now invited this Court to examine background in which order under challenge appearing from paragraph 36 of impugned judgment such background is to be found from order of assessing officer who held that sum of Rs.3,24,000/- was found deposited during search and seizure in undisclosed bank account of assessee. assessee was requested to explain transaction. She disclosed that monies were borrowed by her from various parties. Those parties, however, did not in their books of accounts disclose any such amount allegedly lent to 3 assessee. However, after day when search was conducted those persons offered same amount for taxation by approaching Settlement Commission. assessing officer, therefore, opined as follows: On perusal it appears that Settlement Application in these cases were made after date of search and Settlement Applications have also been admitted by Hon ble Settlement Commission after date of search. But, final orders in these cases have not yet been passed by Hon ble Settlement Commission. Thus, as final orders have not been passed, additional income disclosed by these companies has yet been settled and finalised. Thus, loan granted out of those disclosed income which have not yet been finalised and settled by Hon ble Settlement Commission, can not be accepted at this stage. Mr. Sen, learned advocate appearing for appellant, submitted that in respect of identical transaction in case of assessee herself learned Tribunal remanded matter to assessing officer to reconsider addition on basis of any final decision to be arrived at by Settlement Commission. But in this case this transaction of sum of Rs.3,24,000/- it adopted some different standards which was not fair to say least. Ms. Das De, learned advocate appearing for revenue, has not disputed submissions made by Mr. Sen. In that view of matter, addition of sum of Rs.3,24,000/- is deleted for time being and matter is remanded to assessing officer to reconsider in light of any final decision which may be made by Settlement Commission as was 4 done by learned Tribunal itself in paragraph 34 of impugned judgment which has also been quoted above. appeal is, thus, disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sm Anuradha Modi v. C. I. T., Central - II, Kolkata