KARUN DUBE vs. A.C.I.T.

ITA No.134/2008 Page 1 of 8

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI ITA No.134 /2008 % Judgment reserved on: 29th February, 2008

Judgment delivered on: 10th March, 2008

Karun Dube L-6, Kailash Colony New Delhi

.... Appellant Through: Mr. K.Sampath with Mr. Krishan Mahajan, Advs. Versus. A.C.I.T. Central Circle-9 New Delhi

….Respondent

Through: Mrs. P.L.Bansal, Adv.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

Yes

V.B. GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A 2008:DHC:885-DB

ITA No.134/2008 Page 2 of 8

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as „Act‟) by the Assessee challenging the impugned order dated 8th December, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as „Tribunal‟), Delhi Bench „D‟ in IT(SS)A No.26/DEL/2004 pertaining to block assessment period from 1st April, 1990 to 10th August, 2000. 2. The brief facts of this case are that a search was conducted at the premises of the Assessee on 20th July, 2000. Thereafter, notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued to the Assessee and the Assessee filed the return for the block period on 22nd June, 2000 declaring undisclosed income of Rs.47,93,000/-, details of which have been mentioned in the assessment order. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer brought to the notice of the Assessee that the undisclosed income of the family members of the group concerns had wrongly been disclosed by the Assessee in 2008:DHC:885-DB

ITA No.134/2008 Page 3 of 8

the return of undisclosed income. The Assessee filed his letter dated 11th September, 2000 with revised particulars of undisclosed income to Rs.20,55,000/-. 4. The Assessing Officer assessed the original undisclosed income as per return to the extent of Rs.47,93,000/-. A sum of Rs. 69 lacs was assessed on the basis of slip No.5 Annexure A-13 of the seized documents and an addition of Rs.2,000/- was made on account of interest of loan. 5. The Assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer by way of appeal and in the appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short as „CIT[A]‟) deleted the additions made in respect of family members and other group concern besides the addition of Rs.69,00,000/- was reduced to Rs.47,00,000/-. 6. Cross appeals were filed by both the parties and the appeal filed by the Assessee was partly allowed whereas, 2008:DHC:885-DB

ITA No.134/2008 Page 4 of 8

the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. 7. Now, the Assessee has filed present appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Revenue. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the Assessee that the Tribunal cannot decide which sums in a document, seized during the search, are to be treated in what manner under the Act without first determining whether the document is a dumb document or not. Furthermore, the document seized was having only names and figures but no dates, no units and there were nothing to indicate receipts or expenditures. 9. In the present case, the Assessee has made the conditional offer in his statement which has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order and the same is reproduced as under:- “Actually, the slip#5 contains two types of entries-one from where the money had either come to me or I was supposed to receive it. The other type of entries where those where I 2008:DHC:885-DB

ITA No.134/2008 Page 5 of 8

was supposed to give money or had already given them. If you would see carefully, you will find that some entries have been ticked right(). All such entries are those where money had to be given by me or had already been given away. The sources obviously was profits earned by me or money taken from others by me. The total of all such amounts which has been given away be me comes to 58 lacs. The entries which have not been ticked right, are those from where I had either taken the money or was supposed to take the money. Out of these, 10 lacs in the name of Kapil was accounted for. The total of unaccounted money received or receivable comes to 11 lacs. It would also be very clear that unticked() entries are incoming receipts or receivable if you take into consideration the fact that the amount of 10 lacs in the name of Kapil had been received by me and is unticked. So, the net income of Rs.17 lacs which includes money given away or yet to be given. It does not in any way mean that I had 47 lacs with me which I had given away. In fact, I have never possessed an amount anywhere close to 47 lacs but to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation. I am ready to let this amount be treated as money given or to be given away in consequences to the profits and wholly and solely out of the profits generated from my business activities. But my surrender is only on the condition that this amount of Rs.47 lacs is treated as application of unaccounted profit as admitted by me earlier in this statement. 2008:DHC:885-DB

ITA No.134/2008 Page 6 of 8

I‟m doing this solely for the reason of buying peace and avoiding litigation so that I can be a free man to carry out my business activities, which have suffered heavily because of unfounded allegation about my involvement in betting and match fixing. By now, would also have how false allegation were. I simply want to get over with this. However, I would reserve my right to contest and litigate if this surrender of 47 lacs is treated in any form other than application of my unaccounted profits from my business activities.”

ITA No.134/2008 Page 7 of 8

ITA No.134/2008 Page 8 of 8

V.B. GUPTA, J

MADAN B. LOKUR, J MARCH 10, 2008 rs

2008:DHC:885-DB