9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the assessment order under Section 158BC read with Section 158BD and Section 254. 2. Determination of undisclosed income for the block period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Timeliness of the Assessment Order: The assessee contested that the assessment order dated 25th February 2005 was beyond the permissible time limit under Section 153(2A) of the Act. The original block assessment was completed on 30th September 1997, which was set aside by the Tribunal on 5th March 2003, directing a fresh assessment. The Tribunal's order was sent to the CIT-IV, Pune, on 24th March 2003, and it was presumed to be received by 31st March 2003. The assessee argued that the fresh assessment should have been completed by 31st March 2004. The Department contended that the order was never received by the present CIT-II, Pune, who assumed jurisdiction later, and thus the time limit should be reckoned from when the present CIT received the order. The Tribunal held that the date of receipt by the CIT, Karve Road, Pune, was material for computing the limitation period. The Tribunal presumed the order was received by the CIT on 2nd April 2003, making the deadline for the fresh assessment 31st March 2005. The assessment order dated 25th February 2005 was therefore within the permissible time limit. 2. Determination of Undisclosed Income: The AO determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 41,25,925, which included various amounts based on seized documents and statements. The Tribunal had earlier directed a detailed investigation, including examining concerned persons and providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. a. Rs. 2,75,000 (originally Rs. 27,50,000): The AO interpreted the code "27.50" as Rs. 2,75,000 based on the assessee's statement before FERA authorities. The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct further inquiry or allow cross-examination as directed. The addition was deleted due to lack of evidence and proper investigation. b. Rs. 8,250 (3% commission on Rs. 2,75,000): Since the primary addition of Rs. 2,75,000 was deleted, the related commission addition was also deleted. c. Rs. 16,000 (originally Rs. 1,60,000): The addition was based on the interpretation of "1/60" as Rs. 16,000. The Tribunal found no further inquiry was made, and the addition lacked material evidence. The addition was deleted. d. Rs. 4,00,000 (payable to Mr. R.D. Mehta): The AO did not examine Mr. R.D. Mehta in the presence of the assessee or investigate further as directed. The Tribunal deleted the addition due to lack of compliance with its directions and insufficient evidence. e. Rs. 4,00,000 (unexplained income for fictitious NRE gifts): This addition was also deleted as the primary amount of Rs. 4,00,000 (claimed as gift) was deleted. f. Rs. 2,52,750 (unexplained investment in house property): The AO relied on the DVO's report without comparing it with the registered valuer's report or examining the DVO and registered valuer as directed. The Tribunal deleted the addition due to non-compliance with its directions and lack of evidence of undisclosed income. g. Rs. 18,73,925 (deposits in NRE account): The addition was based on peak deposits in an NRE account and statements by Mr. R.D. Mehta. The AO did not allow cross-examination or follow the Tribunal's directions for further inquiry. The addition was deleted. h. Rs. 4,00,000 (protective addition in Mr. R.D. Mehta's hands): Similar to the above, the Tribunal found no proper inquiry was made, and the addition was deleted. i. Rs. 9,00,000 (transactions with Mr. R.D. Mehta): The AO did not conduct the required inquiry as directed by the Tribunal. The addition was deleted. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting several additions due to lack of proper investigation and compliance with its earlier directions. The assessment order was found to be within the permissible time limit.
|
