9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Cross appeals challenging validity of proceedings u/s 148 and deletion of additions by CIT(A). Validity of Proceedings u/s 147/148: The CIT(A) held that the assessing officer did not fail to pass a speaking order on objections raised by the appellant regarding the initiation of proceedings u/s 147. The appellant's denial of transactions with a third party during reassessment proceedings was not considered as an objection to the proceedings. The CIT(A) concluded that the reassessment u/s 147 was valid based on the provided reasons. Deletion of Addition u/s 69A: The CIT(A) deleted the addition made u/s 69A by the assessing officer, as the appellant denied any financial or business transaction with the third party in question. The assessing officer failed to provide necessary statements or conduct a thorough investigation to justify the addition. The CIT(A) found that the assessing officer did not establish a case against the appellant and made the addition unjustifiably without corroborative evidence or opportunity for cross-examination. Assumption of Wrong Jurisdiction: The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that issuing a notice on a deceased person was invalid, as the notice did not refer to the word "proprietor." The Tribunal agreed with the jurisdiction assumed by the assessing officer and deemed any inadvertent errors in subsequent notices as curable under section 292B. The appellant's failure to raise objections on certain notices indicated acceptance of the proceedings. Sufficiency of Material for Escaped Assessment: The Tribunal upheld the assessing officer's decision to issue a notice u/s 148 based on reasonable material found during a search related to a third party. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer had sufficient grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment, dismissing the appellant's claim of lack of material on record. Deletion of Addition u/s 69A Upheld: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition u/s 69A, as the assessing officer failed to provide the complete statement of the third party involved and did not allow cross-examination. The CIT(A)'s findings were supported by the lack of adverse observations in the remand report and absence of corroborative evidence, leading to the conclusion that the addition was unjustified. Conclusion: Both the appeals, by the assessee and the revenue, were dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) regarding the validity of proceedings u/s 147/148 and the deletion of additions u/s 69A.
|
