The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sudama Singh

Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J—This civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred for restoration of Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2002, which was stood dismissed for default vide order dated 22nd April, 2013, due to non-appearance of the Advocate.

Notice has been issued by this Court upon the respondent to be served through personal service or through direct service by this petitioner, but, this petitioner is unable to serve the notice upon the respondent since long.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has gathered information that the respondent has expired and he is not getting the correct names of the legal heirs of the respondent-assessee as well as the address of the legal heirs.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner and looking to the reasons stated in this civil miscellaneous petition, we hereby, recall the order passed by this Court dated 22nd April, 2013. Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2002 is restored to its original file with the same number.

This civil miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of.

Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2002

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent-assessee retired from the Government Department. He was an Engineer. Assessment order was passed by this appellant under Section 143(3) to be read with Section 158BB(1)(c) to be read with Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27th November, 1997 mainly for the reason that search was carried out on 21st November, 1996 in Canara Bank, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and it was found out that the respondent, who is retired Engineer and settled in his native village, had three bank account and he had not filed any return and therefore, for the Block period running from the year 1987-88 to 1997-98, the entire salary income of Rs. 11,97,610/- earned by the assessee throughout the block period has been considered as undisclosed income, which is chargeable to tax and hence, it has been added in the income of the respondent by Rs. 11,97,610/-. Assessing Officer has passed the order on 27th November, 1997 which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the Tax Appeal against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent being I.T.(SS) Appeal No. 100/Pat./1997.

This appeal has been decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna Circuit Bench, Ranchi and it has been held by the Tribunal that the assessee was working as an Engineer under a Government Department. The income is a salaried income therefore, it cannot be considered to be of undisclosed nature. Tax must have been deducted from the salary income provided his salary is taxable. Looking to the order passed by the ITAT and looking to the evidences on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to Section 158BB(1)(c) to be read with Section 158 BC to be read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 it cannot be said that the income of the respondent was an undisclosed income as he was salaried man in the Government Department and TDS must have been deducted and therefore, only substantive question of law raised by this appellant that whether the Tribunal is justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in holding the salary incomes falling under the block period as disclosed, when no returns were filed for these years looking to Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Answer of this substantive question of law is that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in deciding this issue. There was no other income with the salaried man which is taxable. On other points of the decision rendered by the ITAT, no appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

Thus, is no substance in this Tax Appeal and hence, it is hereby, dismissed.