9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the order under Section 158BC read with Section 254 of the IT Act. 2. Non-compliance with Tribunal's directions in the reassessment. 3. Addition of Rs. 1,48,741 as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1996-97. 4. Addition of Rs. 43,15,00,000 as alleged receipts from Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. 5. General grounds for amending or modifying the grounds of appeal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Limitation of the Order The appellant argued that the order passed by the AO on 13th March 2001 was barred by limitation. However, this ground was not pressed by the learned counsel and hence was treated as dismissed. Issue 2: Non-Compliance with Tribunal's Directions The appellant contended that the AO did not comply with the specific directions given by the Tribunal in its order dated 18th August 1998. The Tribunal had directed the AO to consider evidence for the filing of the return of income and to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. The AO failed to follow these directions, making the assessment void and bad in law. Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 1,48,741 as Undisclosed Income The Tribunal noted that the appellant had filed a return for the assessment year 1996-97 on 22nd April 1997, which was within the extended due date under Section 139(4). The AO had initially proceeded on the assumption that no return was filed. The Tribunal held that the income could not be considered undisclosed as it was not hidden and had already suffered tax by way of TDS. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., emphasizing that in the absence of clear statutory provisions, the interpretation favorable to the assessee should be adopted. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,48,741 was deleted. Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 43,15,00,000 as Alleged Receipts from Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. The AO repeated the addition of Rs. 43,15,00,000 based on statements from various individuals and documents seized during the search. The Tribunal had earlier directed the AO to determine whether the amount should be assessed in the hands of the appellant or Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and to provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The AO failed to provide all relevant statements and did not allow proper cross-examination. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was merely a conduit for passing funds to Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. or its main person, Shri M.R. Chhabria. The Tribunal found that the AO did not comply with its directions and that the addition was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that the same amount could not be taxed twice and that the appellant was not in beneficial enjoyment of the funds. The addition of Rs. 43,15,00,000 was thus deleted. Issue 5: General Grounds for Amending or Modifying the Grounds of Appeal The appellant sought leave to add, amend, or modify the grounds of appeal, which is a standard procedural request. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions of Rs. 1,48,741 and Rs. 43,15,00,000, and emphasized the importance of following procedural directions and ensuring that the same income is not taxed twice. The Tribunal's decision was based on the failure of the AO to comply with specific directions and the lack of evidence to support the additions.
|
