9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee filed a declaration under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as VDIS) and declared an income of Rs.32,45,215/- in the Assessment Year 1994-95 without paying any tax whilst making the declaration. 3. The Assessing Officer on being intimated of the declaration, issued notice to the Assessee under sec.148 read with sec.147 of the I.T.Act. The Assessee filed return of income in response to the notice, declaring Nil income. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed 'best judgment order' on 30.3.2006 raising a demand of Rs.33,15,230/-. 4. The Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals) which was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2006, holding therein that in is disclosure the Assessee did not mention ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer did not accept the arguments of the Assessee. By negating various pleas, the Assessing Authority observed that in so far as the legal plea regarding validity of notice under sec.143(2) was concerned, the Assessee was estopped from raising the same, more so, when the same was not raised before the Tribunal in the relevant remand order. In this manner, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.32,45,215/- as undisclosed income available with the Assessee for the Assessment Year 1998-99, because in his opinion, provisions in sec.69/69A/69B of the Act were squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 8. In appeal, the CIT(Appeals) has accepted the contentions of the Assessee on merits by holding that since the capital gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that in the Cross Objections, he has raised a substantial legal plea which does not require either any new facts or evidence. Since in the opinion of the Assessee, there is no material to rebut his contention the assessment itself is against the law and squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v C. Palaniappan (284 ITR 247). 10. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard by submitting that the Cross Objections are not maintainable at this stage. 11. We have heard both parties at considerable length and also perused the relevant findings and case law referred to herein above. It transpires that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the above conclusion in respect of question No.1, the question of non-furnishing of copies of the reasons by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment does not arise at all. Accordingly, we find no error or illegality in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and thee is no question of law, much less a substantial question of law that arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for our consideration. The appeal stands dismissed. No costs." 12. Consequently, drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court(supra) we hold that in the instant case as well, no valid notice had been issued under sec.143(2) of the Act. Resultantly, in our opinion, the assessment itself is contrary to the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
