2000 (8) TMI 264 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 158BD.
2. Validity of service of notice u/s 158BD.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Determination of undisclosed income.
5. Non-granting of set-off loss determined by the previous order of the Tribunal.

Summary:

1. Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 158BD:
The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings u/s 158BD, arguing that there was no basis or material for the satisfaction necessary for initiating such proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction recorded by the DCIT, Hyderabad, was based on the inference that certain purchases by MCPL and UPL were bogus, and therefore, sales to the assessee were also bogus. However, the Tribunal found this inference to be legally untenable and invalid. The Tribunal highlighted that the letter from ADIT (Inv.), Mumbai, only indicated that certain parties could not be located at the given addresses and requested further details for conducting necessary enquiries. The DCIT, Hyderabad, drew an inference without further enquiry, which was deemed untenable. The Tribunal concluded that the satisfaction recorded was based on no material and was contrary to the evidence on record, thus quashing the notice issued u/s 158BD.

2. Validity of service of notice u/s 158BD:
The assessee argued that the notice u/s 158BD was not served in accordance with law, as it was not addressed to the principal officer of the company and lacked details about the person and status against whom the proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal, having already quashed the notice u/s 158BD, found it unnecessary to address this issue further.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The assessee contended that the assessment was completed in violation of natural justice, as statements of various parties were recorded behind the assessee's back without an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal noted that merely showing the statements to the assessee's representative did not amount to confronting those statements to the assessee, and the assessee should have been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The Tribunal found the assessment to be in violation of natural justice and thus invalid.

4. Determination of undisclosed income:
The Tribunal examined whether there was any undisclosed income based on the definition in section 158B(b). It was found that the purchases were duly disclosed in the books of account and audited statements, and were considered during proceedings u/s 158BC as well as in the regular assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the satisfaction recorded by the DCIT, Hyderabad, was based on no material and contrary to the evidence on record.

5. Non-granting of set-off loss determined by the previous order of the Tribunal:
The assessee argued that the loss already determined in the block assessment should have been deducted. However, since the Tribunal quashed the notice and the assessment order, this issue did not require separate adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued u/s 158BD and the subsequent assessment order, allowing the assessee's appeal.