2003 (1) TMI 228 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Block Assessment Notice.
2. Addition of Bogus Purchases.
3. Unaccounted Sales and Deposits.
4. Depreciation Disallowance.
5. Unaccounted Deposits with Shroff.
6. Interest under s. 158BFA(1).
7. Penalty Proceedings under s. 271(1)(c).
8. Approval by Jt. CIT under s. 158BG.

Summary:

1. Validity of Block Assessment Notice:
The assessee contended that the block assessment was void ab initio as the notice under s. 158BC did not mention the status of the assessee or the correct block period. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, noting that the assessee had correctly understood the notice and filed the return accordingly. The CIT(A)'s rejection of this ground was upheld.

2. Addition of Bogus Purchases:
The AO made additions for bogus purchases from various suppliers, which were confirmed by the CIT(A) in part. The Tribunal noted that the suppliers were found to be fictitious entities controlled by the assessee's directors. Despite the assessee's claims of genuine purchases, the Tribunal upheld the additions, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence to support the assessee's claims. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 25% of the total purchases, considering the material was received but the invoices were inflated.

3. Unaccounted Sales and Deposits:
The AO made additions for unaccounted sales and deposits based on seized documents and statements. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting the lack of direct evidence linking the deposits to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the need for the Department to conduct further investigations to identify the actual sources of the deposits.

4. Depreciation Disallowance:
The AO disallowed depreciation on certain assets, claiming they were not installed or used. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the assets were ready for use and part of the block of assets.

5. Unaccounted Deposits with Shroff:
The AO made additions for unaccounted deposits with L.T. Shroff and J.D. Shroff based on seized documents. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, citing the lack of opportunity for cross-examination and the absence of direct evidence. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee.

6. Interest under s. 158BFA(1):
The AO was directed to grant consequential relief regarding the interest charged under s. 158BFA(1).

7. Penalty Proceedings under s. 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal noted that no appeal could be maintained against the initiation of penalty proceedings in the quantum appeal. This ground was rejected as infructuous.

8. Approval by Jt. CIT under s. 158BG:
The assessee argued that the approval by the Jt. CIT was mechanical and without application of mind. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, citing the Special Bench decision in Kailash Modgil vs. Dy. CIT, which supports the view that such approval does not require a hearing. The ground was rejected.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing further investigation and proper opportunity for the assessee in certain cases. The cross-objections were dismissed.