9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 148 without mentioning reasons. 2. Non-communication of recorded reasons and violation of natural justice. 3. Addition u/s 69C based on the statement of Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan without cross-examination. 4. Legality of Tribunal's observations regarding cross-examination. 5. Reliance on the statement of Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan without cross-examination. 6. Accuracy of Tribunal's observation about the opportunity for cross-examination. 7. Justification of addition u/s 69C. 8. Applicability of section 69C when no expenditure incurred. 9. Tribunal's failure to adjudicate on interest charged in the notice of demand. Summary: 1. Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 148 without mentioning reasons: The appellants argued that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 valid without mentioning the reasons for initiation. The Court found that the appellants had not challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 and were only concerned with the non-supply of full reasons. The gist of the reasons had been supplied, and the appellants had full knowledge of the matter, thus no prejudice was caused. Therefore, the substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 were not considered substantial questions of law. 2. Non-communication of recorded reasons and violation of natural justice: The appellants contended that the reasons recorded were not communicated to them, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the gist of the reasons was sufficient and the appellants were not prejudiced. The Tribunal's decision was upheld. 3. Addition u/s 69C based on the statement of Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan without cross-examination: The appellants argued that the addition u/s 69C was based on the statement of Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan, which was taken at the back of the appellant without giving an opportunity for cross-examination. The Court found that the opportunity for cross-examination was provided but not availed by the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld. 4. Legality of Tribunal's observations regarding cross-examination: The Tribunal observed that the right to cross-examine a witness is not an invariable attribute of natural justice. The Court agreed, stating that formal cross-examination is part of procedural justice and not natural justice. The Tribunal's observations were found to be legally correct. 5. Reliance on the statement of Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan without cross-examination: The appellants argued that the statement of Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan, taken at the back of the appellant, could not be relied upon without cross-examination. The Court held that since the opportunity for cross-examination was provided but not availed, the appellants had no cause to complain. The Tribunal's decision was upheld. 6. Accuracy of Tribunal's observation about the opportunity for cross-examination: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer provided an opportunity for cross-examination, which was not availed by the appellants. The Court found this observation to be correct and based on material evidence. The Tribunal's decision was upheld. 7. Justification of addition u/s 69C: The appellants questioned the addition u/s 69C, arguing that no expenditure was incurred. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's finding that the gifts were purchased by paying a 10% commission was upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, the addition u/s 69C was justified. 8. Applicability of section 69C when no expenditure incurred: The Court found that the provisions of section 69C were applicable as the appellants had incurred expenditure in purchasing the NRI gifts. The Tribunal's decision was upheld. 9. Tribunal's failure to adjudicate on interest charged in the notice of demand: The appellants argued that interest could not be charged in the notice of demand. The Court found that the Tribunal held the levy of interest to be consequential and the appellants could not disprove the levy of interest. The Tribunal's decision was upheld. Conclusion: The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeals and dismissed all the appeals in limine.
|
