High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Sunita Aggarwal
Section 158BB, 260A
Block period 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1997
Madan B. Lokur & V.B. Gupta, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 761 of 2006
13th July, 2007
Counsel Appeared :
Ms. P. L. Bansal, for the Appellant : Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Ms. Poonam Ahuja, for the Respondent
ORDER
By the court :
The assessee (sic-Revenue) is aggrieved by an order dt. 20th Oct., 2004, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench “E”, New Delhi, in IT(SS)A No. 321/Del/2002 relevant for the block assessment period 1st April, 1986, to 31st March, 1997. It appears that a search and seizure operation was conducted in respect of the premises of the assessee and some material was allegedly seized on the basis of which the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee had certain undisclosed income. The AO took the view that the assessee was unable to explain the source of the income and, therefore, the amount was added to her income as undisclosed income. When the matter came up before the Tribunal in appeal, the Tribunal recorded that the Panchnama reveals that what was seized was the regular books of account of the assessee. Other than that “there is no other material or document found in the course of search which warranted embarking upon an enquiry by the AO in a block assessment”. In other words, it is quite clear that what was seized was only the regular books of account of the assessee, which were available before the AO at the time of making the regular assessment. Notwithstanding this, when the matter was listed in this Court on 22nd May, 2006, the Division Bench heard the matter at some length and thereafter learned counsel for the Revenue took time to verify whether any material or document had been found in the course of search to warrant an inquiry by the AO in a block assessment. It appears that this was due to the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that there was no other material other than the regular books of account that were seized. More than a year has gone by since the order dt. 22nd May, 2006, was passed by this Court and today learned counsel for the Revenue informs us that she has received a letter to the effect that in spite of best efforts, the IT Department is unable to trace out the documents on the basis of which the additions were made. It is submitted that efforts are still going on and an adjournment is requested.
We are surprised that in spite of one year’s efforts to trace out the documents, the Revenue has not been able to do so. Nothing was produced before the Tribunal and nothing has been produced before us. It is quite clear that there is no reason to doubt the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that there is no other material that was seized other than what has been mentioned in the Panchnama. It is clear that the AO relied on some non-existent material. Under the circumstances, we find that no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
[Citation : 293 ITR 292]
