9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2016 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer on the basis of invalid evidence and in the absence of cross examination of the witness, whose statement formed the foundation along with the unsigned notings seized during the search and thus passing the order that is perverse in law? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a firm engaged in real estate business. On 18.08.1995, it purchased two parcels of land from Smt. Venkatanarasamma and Smt. Venkatamma and others for consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 21.04.2006 directed deletion of all the additions except a sum of Rs. 30,35,750/- relating to Assessment Year 1996-97 and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee and to re-determine the issue. 4. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 31.12.2007 without obtaining the approval of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. The aforesaid order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act by an order dated 24.03.2010. The Assessing Officer thereafter, again determined the total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 30,35,750/- and held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions in 'ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE', (2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC), 'P.R.METRANI VS. CIT', 287 ITR 209 (SC) 2006, 'CIT VS. P.V.KALYANASUNDARAM', 282 ITR 259 (MAD) 2006, 'CIT VS. SMT.K.C.AGNES', 262 ITR 354 (KER) 2003, 'CIT VS. GIRISH CHAUDHARY', 296 ITR 619 (DEL) 2007, 'CIT VS. S.M.AGGARWAL', 293 UTR 43 (DEL) 2006 AND 'CIT VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL', 87 ITR 349 (SC) 1972. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer has not relied on the statement of Jayaram and therefore, even assuming that an opportunity of cross-examination was not afforded to the assessee, the same does not cause any prejudice to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads as under: 132(4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
