9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.34 (Kol) of 1998 for the Block Period 1987-88 to 1996-97 up to 2nd July, 1996. 2. Being dissatisfied, two of the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm, the assesse, have come up with the present appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) In course of search on July 2, 1996 in the residential premises of one Bijay Kumr Gutgutia, some papers relating to the firm, M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheries, along with other books of accounts and a bunch of papers with identification mark BKG/5 were seized. There were some entries which related to the firm M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheires indicating that the firm had undisclosed income for the Assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Poddar another partner, also confirmed in his deposition under Section 132(4) on 26th August, 1996 the undisclosed income of the firm for the Assessment Year 1990-91 on the basis of the information noted in the seized papers. h) It may not out of place to mention here that no return was filed by the dissolved firm and the notice under Section 158 BC read with Section 158BD and Section 189(1) was issued to all the partners of the dissolved firm on June 6, 1997 asking them to give the return for the block period in respect of the firm of which they were partners. But in spite of that no return was filed by any of the partners. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to all the partners askin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose statement have been relied upon before the passing of an assessment order? "(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case the Assessing Officer had reasons to treat the entries contained in the books of account bearing identification mark BKG/5 as the undisclosed income of SKAH and further as to whether the assessment order as well as the order of the Tribunal is based on no evidence?" 6. Mr. Shome, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, at the very outset, has pointed out that the above two grounds formulated by the Division Bench did not come within the purview of Section 260A of the Act inasmuch as no such point was taken before the Tribunal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimate the date of personal hearing is not tenable in view of the fact that no such plea was taken either before the Assessing Officer or the Tribunal. We have already pointed out that in spite of service of notice, nobody even submitted return or had shown cause as required. Such being the position, the two grounds formulated by the Division Bench cannot be supported. 9. We, thus, find that on the basis of best judgment assessment made by the Assessing Officer, there is no scope of interference in this appeal under Section 260A of the Act and those two grounds raising new questions which are essentially questions of fact cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this appeal and the Revenue in terms of sub-section 4 of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
