9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 49 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the proceedings initiated under section 158BD - Held that - Assessing Officer of the UIC group was to record the satisfaction before initiating the proceeding under section 115BD of the Act. But, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer having the jurisdiction over the assessee has recorded the satisfaction which is incorrect as per law. Taking the consistent views in the decisions of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and the judgment of the hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Champakbhai Mohanbhai Patel (2014 (2) TMI 1168 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) we reverse the orders of the authorities below and this ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of ?14,75,000 under section 68 of the Act. 3. Opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 158BD: The assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings initiated under section 158BD on the grounds that no incriminating material against the assessee was found during the search. The search and seizure operation at the UIC group premises led to the discovery of share scrips allotted to various companies, including the assessee. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 158BD after recording a satisfaction note, indicating that the funds in question were channeled through fictitious bank accounts. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction required under section 158BD should have been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the UIC group, not the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. Relying on the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Champakbhai Mohanbhai Patel and the Supreme Court in Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT, the Tribunal concluded that the satisfaction was incorrectly recorded, rendering the proceedings invalid. 2. Addition of ?14,75,000 Under Section 68: The assessee contested the addition of ?14,75,000 under section 68, arguing that the amount was received through account payee cheques and duly recorded in the books of account. The Assessing Officer had treated the amount as unexplained income due to the inability to verify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, stating that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. However, since the Tribunal found the proceedings under section 158BD to be invalid, the addition under section 68 was also rendered moot. 3. Opportunity for Cross-examination of Witnesses: The assessee argued that it was not provided the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose depositions were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed this objection, noting that the witnesses were initially produced by the director of the assessee-company and later became untraceable. The Tribunal observed that the inability to cross-examine the witnesses was due to their untraceability, and the Assessing Officer had provided copies of the depositions to the assessee. Nevertheless, this issue became irrelevant as the Tribunal invalidated the proceedings under section 158BD. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the orders of the lower authorities. The proceedings initiated under section 158BD were deemed invalid due to the improper recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. Consequently, the addition of ?14,75,000 under section 68 and the issue of cross-examination of witnesses did not require further adjudication. The assessee's appeal was allowed in its entirety.
|
