9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1296 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - Reopening of assessment - Additions u/s 69A - Held that - The ingredient of Section 147/148 are different than the ingredients of Section 153C. The document recovered clearly mention the name of the assessee, description of plot of land and the figure mentioned is ₹ 2,71,00,000/-. The date is also mentioned in this document marked as Annexure A-3/page 221 seized from Mr Madan Kolambekar and Jai Corp Group. The assessee did sold the plot of land to these parties. The assessee was in denial mode while revenue stated that on 23. 08. 2013 , reasons for re-opening were furnished to the assessee while the assessee is in denial mode. The said finding by learned CIT(A) achieved finality as no appeal/CO is filed by the assessee. The tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with adequate safeguards so that the assessee is not un-fairly treated. All these conceptions of the assessee are misplaced/baseless and an desperate attempt to some how wriggle out of the well reasoned and fair order passed by tribunal to advance substantial justice to both the parties based on peculiar factual matrix of the case. The contentions of the assessee is an desperate attempt to seek some how review of the tribunal order which is beyond mandate of Section 254(2) of the 1961 Act and hence these contentions are dismissed as devoid of any merits.
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of alleged mistakes in the tribunal's order under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of additions under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Justification for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal of incriminating evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rectification of Alleged Mistakes: The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the tribunal's order dated 23.11.2017, arguing that these mistakes are apparent from the records and fall within the limited mandate of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal examined the contentions and concluded that the arguments presented by the assessee were an attempt to review the tribunal's order, which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2). The tribunal dismissed the MA, stating that the original order was well-reasoned and fair. 2. Validity of Additions under Section 69A: The tribunal had earlier restored the issue of additions amounting to ?2,71,00,000 under Section 69A to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a denovo determination on merits. The additions were based on incriminating documents seized during searches and surveys on Jai Corp Group and Mr. Madan Kolambekar. The documents indicated unaccounted cash payments related to a land sale by the assessee. The tribunal noted that the assessee had not disclosed this amount in its return of income and that the seized document was not a "dumb document" but had clear details linking the transaction to the assessee. 3. Justification for Reopening the Assessment: The learned CIT(A) had upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, and the assessee did not challenge this decision, allowing it to attain finality. The tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening and the incriminating material were provided to the assessee, contrary to the assessee's claims. The tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with those of the AO and criticized the CIT(A) for merely blaming the AO instead of conducting further inquiries. 4. Opportunity for Cross-Examination and Rebuttal: The tribunal directed the AO to provide copies of the incriminating material to the assessee and to offer the opportunity for cross-examination of the parties from whose possession the documents were seized. This was to ensure that the assessee could rebut the evidence and that the principles of natural justice were upheld. The tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, to support its decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication with adequate safeguards for the assessee. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, affirming that the original order was fair and justified. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh determination of the issue on merits, ensuring that the assessee is provided with all necessary documents and opportunities for cross-examination to rebut the incriminating evidence. The tribunal's decision was guided by principles of natural justice and judicial precedents, aiming to ensure substantial justice for both parties.
|
