V.BHASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 3/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 September 202456 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns two appeals: IT(SS)A No.3/CHNY/2017 by the assessee, Shri V. Bhaskaran, against a block assessment order for the period 01.04.1986 to 24.09.1996, and ITA No.604/CHNY/2021 by the Revenue against an order for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee, Managing Director of J. Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., was subjected to a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 24.09.1996, following an earlier search by the Enforcement Directorate. The block assessment proceedings involved multiple re-framing and appeals, with the original assessment order dated 30.09.1997 being set aside and re-framed multiple times due to procedural issues and directions from the ITAT and the Madras High Court. The revenue's appeal pertains to an assessment framed under Section 153C for AY 2017-18, following a search on 09.11.2017.

What did the Tribunal hold?

On the first issue concerning the assessee's appeal (IT(SS)A No.3/CHNY/2017), the Tribunal noted the prolonged and complex procedural history involving multiple remands and High Court interventions. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the final finding on the validity of the block assessment order itself, it states that the appeal is 'partly-allowed for statistical purposes'. This suggests that while some relief might have been granted or certain aspects were adjusted, the core assessment might have been upheld in principle or parts thereof. The specific relief granted is not detailed, but the operative direction is to allow the appeal for statistical purposes. On the second issue concerning the revenue's appeal (ITA No.604/CHNY/2021), the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note clearly pertained to the financial year 2017-18, relevant to Assessment Year 2018-19, and not the present Assessment Year 2017-18. Since there was no incriminating material or seized material in relation to AY 2017-18, the assessment framed under Section 153C was held to be bad in law and quashed. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Agni Vishnu Ventures (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to ascertain the specific year to which the incriminating material relates.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the block assessment order for the period 01.04.1986 to 24.09.1996, passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 158BC r.w.s. 254 of the Act, is valid, considering the procedural history and multiple remands. The assessee argued that the assessment proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities and lack of proper opportunity. The revenue contended that the assessment was framed in accordance with law. 2. Whether the assessment framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 is valid. The revenue argued that incriminating material found during a search on 09.11.2017, including cash and jewellery, had a bearing on the assessee's total income for AY 2017-18. The assessee contended that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person did not establish that the seized material belonged to the assessee or had a bearing on the income for AY 2017-18, relying on the decision in Agni Vishnu Ventures (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 158BC,Section 254,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 160,Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 19.08.2024Pronounced: 20.09.2024

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

The appeal by the assessee in IT(SS)A No.3/CHNY

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,286 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →