2009 (11) TMI 524 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - documents seized, which included a rough paper with noting pertaining to sale transaction, receipt of amounts - containing the signature of the assessee - Revenue referred to the assess-ment order and the first appellate order and submitted that the assessment is not based solely on one document, namely, annexure E seized from the assessee - assessee submitted that annexure E does not contain sufficient materials to make assessment against the assessee - Held that - Tribunal has not even gone through the assessment order and the first appellate order against which the second appeal was filed before it - Tribunal has not exercised jurisdiction properly, we allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against cancellation of block assessment based on seized documents and sworn statements.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the cancellation of a block assessment completed against the respondent-assessee for the period from April 1, 1989, to September 17, 1998. The assessment was based on documents seized during a search, including a rough paper with notings related to sale transactions and sworn statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal cancelled the block assessment, relying on a Supreme Court decision and stating that the assessment was solely based on one item of seized paper. However, the assessing authority and the first appellate authority had considered multiple materials, including accounts seized from the purchaser and the valuation of property, in making the assessment. The High Court observed that the Tribunal did not properly review the assessment order and the first appellate order before quashing the assessment. The High Court emphasized that sworn statements recorded under section 132(4) constitute evidence for assessment purposes. Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after reviewing all relevant records. A directive was issued to dispose of the appeal within three months.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of considering all relevant materials and evidence in making assessments, emphasizing that sworn statements recorded under section 132(4) are valid evidence. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the block assessment solely based on one seized document was deemed improper. The High Court's decision to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh review with proper consideration of all materials ensures a fair assessment process.