The Commissioner of Income-tax-­8 v. Atul Barot
[Citation -2017-LL-0712-2]

Citation 2017-LL-0712-2
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-­8
Respondent Name Atul Barot
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 12/07/2017
Assessment Year 2003-04
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags scope of assessment • undisclosed income • initial assessment
Bot Summary: P.C. 1 The present appeal pertains to Assessment year 2003 04. The present Appeal is filed by the Revenue on the following grounds : a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in narrowing down the scope of assessment u/s. 153A in respect of completed assessments by holding that only Gaikwad RD 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 09:45:25 :::ITXANo. 16902014 undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during search could be brought to tax 2 Mr.Pinto, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal was in error in observing that assessment under Section 153A of the Act has to be restricted to the incriminating evidence/documents found during the search. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal could not have answered issue of scope of Section 153A of the Act. 3 The learned counsel for the Respondent supports the Order and submits that the issue is covered by the Judgment of this Court in case of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd. reported in 2015 374 ITR 645. The said Judgment is further relied in the Judgment of this Court in the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurinder Singh Bawa in Income Tax Appeal No.1839 of 2013 delivered on 5th October 2015.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDITION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1690 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 8 ... Appellant V/s. Shri.Atul Barot ... Respondent ..... Mr.Arvind Pinto, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Nitesh Joshi with Mr.Atul K. Jasani, Advocate for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & A.M.BADAR JJ. DATED : 12th July 2017. P.C. 1 present appeal pertains to Assessment year 2003 04. present Appeal is filed by Revenue on following grounds : a) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in narrowing down scope of assessment u/s. 153A in respect of completed assessments by holding that only Gaikwad RD 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 09:45:25 ::: (40)ITXANo.16902014 undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during search could be brought to tax ? 2 Mr.Pinto, learned counsel for Revenue submits that Tribunal was in error in observing that assessment under Section 153A of Act has to be restricted to incriminating evidence/documents found during search. According tot he learned counsel, other evidence can also looked into. Initial assessment was under Section 143(3) of Act. According to learned counsel, Tribunal could not have answered issue of scope of Section 153A of Act. 3 learned counsel for Respondent supports Order and submits that issue is covered by Judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. reported in [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom). said Judgment is further relied in Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurinder Singh Bawa in Income Tax Appeal No.1839 of 2013 delivered on 5th October 2015. 4 issue as raised in present proceedings is no longer res integra in view of authoritative pronouncements of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurinder Singh Bawa (referred to supra). This Court has in said case Gaikwad RD 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 09:45:25 ::: (40)ITXANo.16902014 observed that assessment under Section 153A has to be restricted upon incriminating evidence found during search. It is held that Section 153A of Act does not give right for Assessing Officer to have second inning of assessment. 5 In light of above, Tribunal has not committed any error in passing impugned order. Appeal being sans of substantial question of law, Appeal is dismissed. 6 No costs. ( A.M.BADAR J.) ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA J.) Gaikwad RD 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 09:45:25 ::: TheCommissionerofIncome-tax-8 v. AtulBarot
Report Error