9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeals by Revenue against CIT(A) orders for asst. yr. 1992-93 based on identical facts. Analysis: The case involves appeals by Revenue against CIT(A) orders for the assessment year 1992-93. The appeals were based on identical facts and were disposed of by a single order for convenience. The background of the case involves a search revealing benami investments in a housing society, with funds from an NRI, leading to FERA violations. The AO initiated assessment based on CIT(A) directions, but the assessee denied the investments. The AO proceeded with time-barring assessment due to the assessee's non-cooperation, repeating the earlier additions. The CIT(A) subsequently deleted the additions, citing evidence establishing benami nature and suggesting assessment on the syndicate. The CIT(A) highlighted serious violations of IPC and recommended urgent attention to the matter. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that all relevant facts were not considered, especially in light of Settlement Commission proceedings involving other parties. The Departmental Representative contended that the AO's directions were not followed, and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate critical aspects. The Authorized Representative defended the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of examination by the AO and the importance of evidence. Upon review, the Tribunal found shortcomings in the examination and recording of facts by both the AO and CIT(A). It noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination and incomplete consideration of evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a thorough examination of transactions, especially regarding the disposal of flats by the alleged syndicate. Given these deficiencies, the Tribunal proposed sending the issue back to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a fair hearing to the assessee. Both parties accepted this proposition, leading to the decision to remand the appeals to the AO for proper examination and decision in accordance with the law. In conclusion, all the appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the case being remanded to the AO for a fresh decision after addressing the deficiencies in the examination and recording of facts.
|
