9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of Rs. 10,16,833 on account of jewellery belonging to customers. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,37,773 on account of gift (jewellery) received from Grand Mother. 5. That the ld.CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,14,000/Rs. 1,57,000 on account of cash seized from the occupants of the car. 6. That the additions confirmed are highly excessive. 7. That the gold and silver rates applied are highly excessive. 8. That the order is bad in law as well as on facts. 9. That the order may kindly be set aside, modified or any other consequential relief may be allowed." 3. In I.T.(SS) A. No. 7 (ASR)/2001, the Revenue has raised the following ground: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,57,000 out of Rs. 3,14,000 on account of cash seized, made by the Assessing Officer." 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, appearing from the orders of the authorities below, are that the assessee was travelling in Car No. DL-4-CH-0991 alongwith his three friends on 23-11-1998 when the Punjab Police party of Abohar city seized ornaments of gold weighing 5.469 Kg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered that the jewellery and cash be handed over to the assessee instead of Income-tax Department. This decision of the lower court was subsequently upheld by the Session Judge, Ferozapur. The Department filed a criminal revision against the order of the Session Judge before the Hon able Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Hon ble High Court issued the notice of motion for 20-7-2000 and also issued interim stay. Before the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the standing counsel of the Income-tax Department, Shri R.P. Sahni, Sr. Advocate admitted that sections 132 132A of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the assessee s case. Accordingly, it was submitted before the CIT(A) that when sections 132 and 132A were not applicable to the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer has erred in making the block assessment under section 158BC( c ) of the Act for the block period 1-4-1988 to 30-11-1998. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer should have made the assessment within 120 days from 30-11-1998. On the contrary, it was the stand of the Department that the assessment for the block period 1-4-1988 to 30-11-1998 has been completed and in accordance with law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Commissioner or Commissioner) shall be in Form No. 45C, shall be in writing under the signature of the officer issuing the authorisation and shall bear his seal. (2) The officer authorised to make a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 132A (hereinafter referred to as the requisitioning officer) shall make the requisition in writing to the officer or authority referred to in clause ( a ) or clause ( b ) or, as the case may be, clause ( c ) of the said sub-section (hereinafter referred to as the delivering officer or authority) calling upon the delivering officer or authority to deliver the books of account, other documents or assets specified in the requisition to him. The requisition shall be accompanied by a copy of the authorization in Form No. 45C. A copy of the requisition, alongwith a copy of the authorisation in Form No. 45C, shall be forwarded to the person referred to in clause ( a ) or clause ( b ) or as the case may be, clause ( c ) of sub-section (1) of section 132A." In view of the above, provisions, it was submitted that in the instant case, authorisation in Form No. 45C was never sent alongwith the letter dated 30-11-1998 addressed to the S.H.O., Polic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). (8) Amandeep Singh v. Director of Income-tax [2001] 252 ITR 139 (P H). (9) Raja Ram Kulwant Rai v. ACIT [1997] 227 ITR 187 (P H). 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusing the impugned order, it would be clear that the learned CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and also not properly dealt with the contentions of the assessee. It is relevant to state that the assesee has raised a very valid ground before the CIT(A) by way of following ground: "That neither there was any search under section 132 nor books of account, other documents or assets were requisitioned under section 132A of the Act so this assessment is liable to be quashed. This is supported by the statement of the standing counsel Sh. R.P. Sahni, Advocate before the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 22-6-2000 in the case of the assessee." It seems that while deciding the appeal, the learned CIT(A) has neither considered nor decided the ground in its right perspective. He simply mentioned that the action of the Assessing Officer was justified under the provisions of section 132A but he has not assigned any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
