2010 (4) TMI 1190 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Addition u/s 153A without incriminating material, 2. Lack of reasonable opportunity in assessment process, 3. Jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153A for a specific assessment year.

Issue 1: Addition u/s 153A without incriminating material

The assessee contended that no addition can be made u/s 153A without any incriminating material found during search. However, the counsel for the assessee decided not to press this ground, leading to its dismissal.

Issue 2: Lack of reasonable opportunity in assessment process

The assessee argued that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was allowed in the assessment process, which rendered the assessment orders illegal and unsustainable. The counsel highlighted the hasty manner in which the assessment was completed, pointing out the lack of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer and inadequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found merit in the contention that the assessment was done hastily and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153A for a specific assessment year

In a separate appeal, the issue raised was the jurisdiction of assessment u/s 153A for a particular assessment year. The Tribunal noted that as per the provisions of section 153A, the Assessing Officer is mandated to assess six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted. Since the search was conducted on a specific date, it was determined that the assessment for the particular assessment year in question was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention and held that the assessment u/s 153A was unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Conclusion: The appeals by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and one appeal was allowed due to the lack of jurisdiction in the assessment process.