9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment as are available with the Assessing Authority, have admittedly heard the Assessee on the merits of the case. No substantial question of law in this regard can be said to be arising on the basis of the office guidelines which are for internal purposes of the Department. Estimation of income of the assessee who was working as Priest - estimate based on the relevant material seized during the course of search and the statement recorded of the Assessee u/s. 132[4] - Held that:- Assessee in the statement had estimated the undisclosed income of ₹ 75 lakhs for 3 assessment years under consideration which matches the figures and amounts shown in the seized document relating to Pooja income of ₹ 35 lakhs, ₹ 20 lakhs and ₹ 20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively - No ambiguity in the statement of assessee regarding the Pooja income which has been clearly corroborated by the seized material. Thus when there is a sufficient evidence seized material which corroborates the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 132(4) on 23.2.2009 then the subsequent retraction of the statement by the assessee without any corroborating e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nating material on record, is right in its conclusion that the appellant has made a sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- in the addition to the amount invested on purchase of Flat? 3. Mr. R. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Assessee has urged before us that Block Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Authority in the present case, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mangalore on 27.12.2010 u/s. 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act for the block period of 2005-06 to 2009-10 in pursuance of search carried out at the residential premises of the Assessee at Alangar, Moodabidri on 13.02.2009. The said Order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax with prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Panaji, vide letter No.JCIT/ CR/ PNJ/ 153A/ C/ Approval/2010-11 dated 15.12.2010. But, the said Authority, namely, Joint Commissioner did not give any notice and opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before granting approval to the Draft Assessment Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present case. 4. Against the aforesaid Assessment Order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee before granting approval to the Draft Assessment Order to be passed by the lower Assessing Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner in the present case, such a requirement cannot be fastened upon the Assessing Authority. He submitted that the act of approval is an administrative in nature and even if the same is treated as a quasi-judicial function, in the absence of any specific provision in this regard, in Section 153D of the Act, no such inference can be drawn. He also submitted that undoubtedly the Assessing Authority gave full opportunity of hearing to the Assessee in the present case, so also before the two Appellate Authorities below, who have dealt with the said contention of the Assessee. He submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present case in this regard. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the internal guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as urged by the learned Counsel for the Assessee, bereft of the statutory provisions in Section 153D of the Act cannot bind the approving Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner to comply with the principles of natural justice by the said Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 143(3) and that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and in the reassessment under Section 153A, no addition can be made except based on seized material. We find that the Assessing Officer has placed a copy of the seized material at page 10 of the assessment order which clearly shows different entries recorded by the assessee including an entry of Mandir and Pooja of ₹ 35 lakhs for the F.Y.2005-06. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not based merely on statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the assessee in the statement had estimated the undisclosed income of ₹ 75 lakhs for 3 assessment years under consideration which matches the figures and amounts shown in the seized document relating to Pooja income of ₹ 35 lakhs, ₹ 20 lakhs and ₹ 20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively. We find that there is no ambiguity in the statement of assessee regarding the Pooja income which has been clearly corroborated by the seized material. Thus when there is a sufficient evidence seized material which corroborates the statement of the assessee recorded u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
