9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original assessment was made vide order dt.20th May, 1982. Thereafter the Department received some communication from the IAC, Range-XI,Bombayvide letter dt. 3rd Jan., 1984 that the DDI, Intelligence Unit-II, Bombay had unearthed hawala business in Hing, which showed that Hing was being under invoiced and the assessee was one of the persons who had sold Hing through commission agents only. On the basis of that information the assessee's assessments for the years under consideration were reopened under s. 147(a) for which the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons as below: "The IAC, Range-XI,Bombayvide his letter dt.3rd Jan., 1984has passed on an information that the DDI (Intelligence) Unit-II,Bombayhad unearthed the Hawala in Hing du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble High Court disposed of the assessee's writ petition by observing as below: "2. No, doubt, the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is circumscribed by the conditions laid down in s. 147(a). Certain facts have to exist to show that an assessment can be reopened. The existence of such reasons and a direct nexus between those reasons and the alleged evasion is a condition precedent for reopening the assessment. However, in a case like the present, where there are disputed facts it is not easy to ascertain what is the material and what is the nexus. Unless the material appearing against the assessee is examined by this Court in detail, it would not be easy to ascertain whether the reasons actually existed for reopening the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, namely, Motia Rani, etc., additional income @ Rs. 5 per kg. had been assessed, the amount of extra profit in the case of the assessee in respect of 752 bags weighing 49,330 kgs. was Rs. 2,46,666. He added this amount to the total income of the assessee for asst. yr. 1979-80. For asst. yr. 1980-81 he assessed the additional profit @ Rs. 10 per kg. in respect 31,136 kgs. of Hing. The addition was, thus Rs. 3,11,361 in asst. yr. 1980-81. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but failed and is now before us. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee again contended that in this case there was no cogent material before the Assessing Officer on the basis of which he could have reason to believe that the assessee had not disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order dt.23rd Feb., 1982. According to the assessee, M/s R.L. Traders is a firm ofDelhi, M/s Chanchal Singh Pradhan Singh is a commission agent atBombayand M/s Seth Ram Tika Mal at Dehradun. The total business conducted by the assessee through these parties in the two assessment years has been given in a statement at page 20 of the paper book as below: Name of the parties Sold in kgs. M/s R.L. Traders,Delhi 66,927.7 M/s Chanchal Singh Pardhan Singh,Bombay 9,680.4 M/s Seth Ram Tika Mal, Dehradun 3,262.00 7. According to the assessee the bulk of goods was sold through the Delhi party and only very little goods were sold through M/s Chanchal Singh Pardhan S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before us during the hearing. The information contained in the letter would be the impression of the IAC or the DDI based on the material recovered during the search or in the statements of the concerned parties recorded at or after the search. No such information or statement is recorded in the reasons, so much so that although the assessee had even challenged the initiation of action under s. 147(a) before the High Court in a writ petition and the High Court had issued directions as stated above, yet not only to specific information was supplied to the assessee, even in the assessment order no such material has been mentioned to exist on the record of the Assessing Officer. In the original assessment order for asst. yr. 1979-80 it is me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
