ORDER
Jugal Kishore, A.M.
1. This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4-7-2006 for the block assessment period 1991-92 to 2000-01 on the following grounds:
(1) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi has erred in cancelling the order made by the assessing officer 27-10-2004.
(2) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000 on account of undisclosed income invested in purchase of KVPs worth Rs. 37,50,000.
(3) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,50,000 on account of undisclosed interest earned on KVPs during the assessment year 2001-02.
(4) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi erred in quashing the order in the individual status ignoring the fact that notice under Section 158BC/BD was issued in the name of the assessee in individual capacity and not in HUF capacity, but no return of income was filed in individual capacity.
(5) For that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi failed to appreciate that submission 1-3-2001 made on behalf of the assessee refers to the undisclosed investment being made out of undisclosed income earned by the assessee in individual capacity.
2. At the outset of the appellate proceedings before us, the learned CIT departmental Representative Shri Prayag Jha has vehemently assailed the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and has pointed out that the assessee in this case himself admitted to have made investment in KVPs at the time of search to the extent of Rs. 37,50,000, which was subsequently changed by the assessee, contending that such investments were made in the status of HUF while filing the block return. It has been stated by Shri Jha that since the assessee has himself contended to have invested Rs. 37,50,000 in the KVPs, which was found as a result of search, the assessing officer has no option, but to make the addition in the hands of the assessee, which was deleted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that such KVPs actually belonged to the HUF of the assessee on which tax has been made, which was not correct.
3. In his rival submission, the learned Counsel for the assessee Shri V.K. Jalan has strongly defended the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that this is not a case of revenue that the assessee has not tendered undisclosed income and has not paid tax thereon and in the present case it is an established fact that the investment in purchase of KVPs worth Rs. 37.5 lakhs was found as a result of search operation in the hands of Shri Pradeep Kr. Jain and the assessee suo motu declared such KVPs in HUF capacity and paid tax of Rs. 22.50 lakhs and in these circumstances, the action of assessing officer in again making addition in the hands of assessee HUF was certainly a double addition, which was rightly deleted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
4. We after hearing both the parties and perusing the orders of tax authorities find that though the search operation took place in case of Pradeep Kr. Jain, no KVP was found with Shri Pradeep Kr. Jain and after initiation of 158 (sic-s. 158 BC) proceedings in the case of assessee, the assessee offered Rs. 37.50 lakhs as undisclosed income in form of investment in KVPs in the name of himself and his wife and has paid tax thereon. It is also a fact that there is no evidence on record that the assessee was possessing more KVPs either in individual capacity or HUF capacity so that he could be taxed in individual capacity as well as HUF capacity and since in the present case, the assessee has itself offered undisclosed income of Rs. 37,50,000 in its HUF capacity and has paid tax thereon and no other investment has been found by the department except the above Rs. 37.50 lakhs, in our considered opinion, the action of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition in the individual capacity in the hands of assessee was based with correct appreciation of facts and documents involved in this case, and therefore, such order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) does not make any inference at our end. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the grounds raised by the revenue.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.