2014 (1) TMI 285 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Assessment made u/s 158BC of the Act Warrant of authorization not issued in the name of assessee High Court remanded the matter back to tribunal Held that - A bare reading of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessing officer placed his reliance not only on the seized materials but also on the admissions made by the partners regarding suppression of sales - the CIT(A) is not justified in saying that the assessing officer has not used any evidence found during the course of search operation - the CIT(A) ought to have reappreciated the seized materials found on record which were relied upon by the assessing officer - The CIT(A) committed an error in deleting the addition without considering the seized materials which were available on record the matter remitted back to the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of seized material and the statement recorded during the course of search operation Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues involved:
1. Validity of assessment made under section 158BC of the Act due to warrant of authorization not being issued in the name of the assessee.
2. Estimation of undisclosed income by the assessing officer based on suppression of sales.
3. Appeal by the assessee before CIT(A) leading to deletion of addition made by the assessing officer.
4. Discrepancies in the estimation of undisclosed income by the assessing officer for various assessment years.
5. Consideration of seized materials and statements recorded during search operation in assessing undisclosed income.
6. Maintainability of cross objection filed by the assessee in support of CIT(A) order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the revenue challenged the order of CIT(A) due to the assessment made under section 158BC being considered void as the warrant of authorization was not issued in the name of the assessee. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the appeal for decision on merit.

2. The assessing officer estimated undisclosed income based on suppression of sales found during a search operation. The partners admitted to the suppression of receipts, leading to the estimation of income for a specific period. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing lack of reliance on materials found during the search operation, which the Tribunal deemed incorrect.

3. The assessee contended that the estimation of undisclosed income by the assessing officer was arbitrary and mechanical, challenging the assessment for multiple assessment years. The CIT(A) deleted certain additions made by the assessing officer, which the Tribunal found to be unjustified, as all materials, including those from the search operation, were used for estimation.

4. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the assessing officer's estimation methodology and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue by reevaluating seized materials and statements recorded during the search operation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and instructed a fresh consideration of the matter.

5. The cross objection filed by the assessee in support of the CIT(A) order was deemed not maintainable as the Tribunal had remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. Consequently, the cross objection was dismissed, and the appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal provisions.

← Previous Next →