CIT v. Dr. K. Kannagi (2020) 424 ITR 470/ 194 DTR 145 316 CTR 695 (Mad) (HC)/CIT v. Dr. N. Rajkumar (2020) 424 ITR 470/ 194 DTR 145 316 CTR 695 (Mad) (HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment – Undisclosed income –Agricultural income- Seized material and statement – Due date for filing of return was not expired – Deletion of addition – Tribunal bound to give reasons for reversing findings rendered by lower authorities — Deletion of addition is held to be not justified .[ S.69A, 132(4) 158BA, 158BC 254(1) ]

The assessees, husband and wife, were doctors who had professional income from running a hospital and agricultural income. They also ran four financial firms doing the business of money lending. There was search and seizure action . Based on the evidence and statement the   Assessing Officer made additions on account of undisclosed income under section 69A of the seized cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the attempts of the assessees to show that most of the undisclosed income was beyond the purview of the block period had not been substantiated by facts. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the Department had to consider the block returns and the statements jointly and could not pick and choose evidence but apply them in toto, that the investments made by the family-members in their individual capacity could not be added in the assessees’ hands without making any further enquiry.  On appeal the Court held that the  findings of the Tribunal had not only gone against the admissions of the persons searched and their statements, but was also contrary to the returns filed by the assessees in pursuance of the notices issued under section 158BC consequent to the search. Considering facts of the case the Court held that Tribunal was wrong in accepting the contention that the undisclosed income did not belong to the assessees in their individual capacity but it could be attributed to the Hindu undivided family of one of the assessees and its findings of fact reversing the findings of the two authorities could not be sustained Court also held that even in affirming the findings of the authorities below, the burden was heavier for the higher appellate authority when it decided to reverse the findings of the authorities below. The findings of the Tribunal were perverse and required interference of the court under section 260A .( BP .1-4-1996 to 4-6-2002)