9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were issued seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The reasons recorded were as follows: "A.Yr.2006-07: Information has been received that cash deposit of Rs.36,15,000/- was made in Bank (maintained by the assessee company) account No. 848741 with ANB-AMRO Bank during the period 01.01.06 to 31.03.06. On verification of its accounts for the financial year 2005- 06 relating the A.Y. 2006-07, it is found that (1) Rs.99,379/- was received on account of interest during the relevant previous year (2) There was no fresh loan or capital received during the relevant previous year (3) Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant previous year. On the basis of the above, I have reason to believe that income has been escaped from assessment. Consequently, notice u/s 148 is issued for the purpose of reassessment u/s147." The Assessing Officer while passing his order under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act observed, inter alia, as follows : "On being the receipt the notice u/s. 148, the reason for issuing 148 is served on 22.04.2010 to the assessee fixing the date of hearing on 10.05.2010. The Ld. A/R, A.K. Dudhewala appears on the day and requested for adjournment till 25.06.2010. On 25.06.2010, he is requested to furnish books of accounts with some details. The notice u/s. 133(6) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on 28th December, 2010, the assessee preferred an appeal. The contention of the assessee was as follows: "All the parties to whom notices u/s 133(6) were issued complied to the same and confirmed the transactions with the appellant company. The inspector also verified the transactions with their books of accounts. Thereafter, again the Income Tax Officer issued notices u/s. 131 asking for the same details as were asked for in the notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Once again all the companies furnished replies giving full details of the transactions with the Assessee company". Mr. Sen, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee in support of his aforesaid contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamine the witness produced by the appellant, or b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant." Mr. Sen submitted that there is no question of any violation of sub-rule (3) because his client did not adduce any additional evidence. He added that, in any event, alleged violation of sub-rule (3) can only be made provided any additional evidence has been adduced. Additional evidence, according to him, cannot be adduced unless sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is complied with, which provides as follows: "The appellant shall not be en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e finding of the Assessing Officer is that notices issued under section 133(6) and summons issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act remained unresponded and unserved respectively. There is a presumption in law (section 114(e) of the Evidence Act) that all official and judicial acts were regularly performed. It is not open to any judicial or quasi-judicial authority to lightly assume that the contents of any judicial or quasi-judicial order or the observation or findings made therein are untrue or incorrect. The findings recorded by the Assessing Officer could not have been upset by the CIT (Appeal) without giving an opportunity to the former to explain, merely because the assessee took the stand that "all the parties to whom notices u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer to examine them in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as also the provision contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A. The finding that " the A.O. is not justified in treating the cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant of Rs.99,40,000/- as undisclosed income" is, according to us, for the aforesaid reasons altogether perverse. Mr. Sen drew our attention to the following observations made by the CIT (Appeal). "Thus the genuineness of the transactions stands proved by the assessing officer's own admission in the impugned order dated 28th December, 2010" The aforesaid finding made by the CIT (Appeal) is equally perverse. The genu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
