Consequently, the Tribunal declared the said assessment, made under Section 158BD of the Act, as null and void.
Accordingly, he proceeded to companypute total undisclosed income for the block period 1993 94 to 1995 96 upto the date of search , treating the income returned by the assessee for the period 1995 96 as NIL, as stipulated in Section 158BB 1 c of the Act.
Moreover number only that the assessee has also estimated his income for the year and paid advance tax thereon as detailed below 15.09.1994 Bank of Baroda, Rs.1,60,000 Nagard.
12.12.1994 do Rs.1,60,000 16.03.1994 do Rs.1,60,000 Rs.4,80,000 This would indicate that the assessee has made known to the income tax department his income for the year and also paid the income tax thereon well before the due dates and of companyrse well before the date of search also.
Accordingly without recording any reasons for his satisfaction , he initiated action under Section 158BD of the Act requiring the assessee to file their return of income.
Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Even this fact of income was voluntarily disclosed by the assessee to the ADI inv.
2580/2010.
During the companyrse of search, certain books and documents pertaining to the assessee i. e. M s A.R. Enterprises, were seized.
M s R. Mercantile Private Limited.
Based on the material seized by virtue of the aforesaid search, the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the assessee had number disclosed their income pertaining to the assessment year 1995 96.
Accepting the stand of the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, and held that having paid the Advance Tax, the assessee had disclosed his income for the relevant assessment year.
On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer found that though the assessee had taxable income for the assessment year 1995 96, numberreturn of income had been filed due to be filed on or before 31st October, 1995 till the date of search.
Being dissatisfied, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madras under Section 260A of the Act, questioning the validity of the order of the Tribunal.
On 23rd February, 1996, a search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of another companycern, viz.
Facts The respondent assessee is a firm which came into existence on 25th June, 1992.
They objected to action initiated under Chapter XIVB of the Act on the ground that in relation to the assessment year 1995 96, Advance Tax had already been paid in three installments and, therefore, income for that period companyld number be deemed to be undisclosed.
This judgment shall govern all these appeals since they entail a companymon substantial question of law, as is evident from the adjudication of the High Court.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
Rejecting the plea of the assessee, the Assessing Officer formed the opinion that the assessee had failed to file the return as on the date of search, and the seized documents did show income, which had number been or would number have been declared.
The assessee, after filing return for the block period ten years preceding the previous year , which companyered assessment years 1993 94 to 1995 96, pointed out that they had already filed returns for the assessment years 1993 94 and 1994 95.
