In the instant case, there is no iota of evidence, nor is it the assessee’s case of it being so, of any joint economic or commercial activity by the four named persons, to suggest even remotely of income/ assets of an AOP. In fact, by all available counts, the information, or at least one of the information, leading to the search action, is the monies received from ANL under the Arbitration Award dated 26.11.2005; the same having not been disclosed in the returns for the respective years.
The said income, arising from the joint ownership of the property, in defined ratios, is asses sable only separately in their individual names. Rather, we have already clarified that even assessment in the hands of the person/s other than whose names stand mentioned in the WOA, as for example AOP comprising some such persons, can also be validly made if material as to its undisclosed income is found in the search, thus initiated. That is, in case of mis-match between the person/s in respect of whom search is initiated and in respect of whom assets/income is (also) found. The law is comprehensive and contemplates such a situation, prescribing a separate procedure for such cases per section 153C. We are, therefore, with respect, unable to subscribe to the view advocated by the hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vandana Verma (supra) that a WOA in joint names of different individuals can lead to a valid assessment/s u/s.153A only in the hands of the AOP or Body of Individuals (BOI) comprising them, and are inclined to favour the pre- dominant judicial view as expressed by three high courts, including the Allahabad High Court itself. The assessee’s legal plea is, accordingly, dismissed, disposing its ground no. 1 as well as the additional ground no. 1.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI
ITA Nos. 1732 & 2109/Mum/2010
Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2006-07
Satish L. Babladi
Vs.
Dy. CIT, Central Circle
Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2013
ORDER
