2024 (10) TMI 851 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order passed u/s 153C as barred by limitation - order bears the date as 30.12.2011 however, the same was issued and dispatched on 02.01.2012 as per the report of the post office - AR has submitted that the assessment year 2004-05 is beyond the block period of six years for the assessment u/s 153C - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has raised this plea first time during the course of hearing of the appeal. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that this plea of the assessee be considered by the AO along with other issues set aside by us for fresh adjudication. Accordingly this issue is remanded to the record of the AO for proper verification and adjudication. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the assessment order under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Additions made on a protective basis and substantive additions in the hands of another individual.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity for cross-examination.
4. Consideration of the assessment year 2004-05 as beyond the block period for assessment under Section 153C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 153C:

The assessee challenged the assessment order's validity, arguing it was barred by limitation under Section 153C. The order was dated 30.12.2011 but allegedly dispatched on 02.01.2012, beyond the limitation period. The department contended that the order was handed over to the postal department on 30.12.2011 under the "Buy Now Pay Later" (BNPL) scheme, which was within the limitation period. The Tribunal, relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani v. Dy. CIT, held that the handing over of the order to the postal department on 30.12.2011 constituted issuance within the limitation period. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention regarding the limitation.

2. Additions Made on Protective Basis:

The assessee contested the protective additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), arguing that substantive additions were made in the hands of another individual, Shri Arvind Joshi. The Tribunal noted that in a related case, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication due to overlapping issues. Consequently, the Tribunal decided that the protective additions in the assessee's case should also be reconsidered in light of the outcome of the proceedings in Shri Arvind Joshi's case. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The assessee argued that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used as evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged this violation, noting that statements and reports were used without giving the assessee a chance to rebut them. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing the necessity of cross-examination for a fair trial. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO, directing that the assessee be allowed to cross-examine witnesses and respond to evidence used against them.

4. Assessment Year 2004-05 Beyond the Block Period:

The assessee claimed that the assessment year 2004-05 was beyond the block period for assessment under Section 153C. The Tribunal noted that this issue was raised for the first time during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal decided that this matter should be considered by the AO during the fresh adjudication process, along with other issues.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal remanded the matters concerning the validity of the assessment order, protective additions, and the alleged violation of natural justice to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity to present their case, including cross-examining witnesses and responding to evidence. The issue of whether the assessment year 2004-05 is beyond the block period was also remanded for verification and adjudication by the AO. The cross-appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.