9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is trying to merely delay the proceedings and thwart the consequences of the orders passed in substantive proceedings - This is clearly a factual matter - Once the assessee has accepted the findings in the order passed in the substantive proceedings that the concerns were benami and that the income of the benami concerns ought to be included in his income, then, the appeals do not raise any substantial question of law – Decided against Assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 4658 of 2010, Income Tax Appeal No. 4659 of 2010, Income Tax Appeal No. 4660 of 2010, Income Tax Appeal No. 4661 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And G. S. Kulkarni,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. B. L. Gandhi and P. Shukla i/by K. C. Pandey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of natural justice. Subsection (3) of Section 154 has thus been violated and this would raise a substantial question of law. 3 We are unable to agree. These are not substantive proceedings from which the present appeals have been filed. They are rightly termed as consequential one. The substantive proceedings on the own showing of the assessee were that, in assessment years 1995-1996 to 1999-2000, the assessment was reopened. It was reopened in the case of 6 assessees because of the information received from the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Assessing Officer after necessary inquiries held that all the six concerns are benami. They are benami concerns of the assessee and, therefore, their income was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not passed a speaking order on all legal issues. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has noted the objection and the dispute raised by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. It has also considered the objections of the assessee raised before it by its representative. Thereafter the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee is trying to merely delay the proceedings and thwart the consequences of the orders passed in substantive proceedings. Therefore, it assigned cogent reasons in paragraphs 4 and 4.1 of the impugned order under which all the objections noted have been rejected. This is, therefore, a clearly factual matter. This is not a case where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
