9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the facts and circumstances of the case? b) Whether Tribunal erred in law in not holding that there was no reason to believe that income escaped assessment and all mandatory conditions to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Act were not satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case? c) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in reversing the deletion made by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] of the addition under Section 69B in respect of alleged unexplained investments made in properties of Rs. 28,75,500/- for the assessment year 2007-08 on the facts and circumstances of the case?" 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it before the CIT (A) (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI). By common order dated March 16, 2012, CIT (A) partly allowed the appeals. The assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals against the said order before the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Bengaluru). Against the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the assessee preferred cross objections. By its judgment dated August 14, 2014, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee. The appeal preferred by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 was partly allowed and dismissed the appeals for other assessment years. Questions No.(a) & (b): 4. Shri. Chadrashekar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that these two question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer does not call for any interference. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. In Manish Maheshwari, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows: "10. Law in this regard is clear and explicit. The only question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the notice dated 6-2-1996 satisfies the requirements of Section 158-BD of the Act. The said notice does not record any satisfaction on the part of the assessing officer. Documents and other assets recovered during search had not been handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction in the matter. 11. No proceeding under Section 158-BC had been initiated. There is, thus, a patent non-application of mind. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfaction with regard to escapement of income. On the other hand, he has based Revenue's case entirely on the statement of assessee. Assessee has placed reliance on Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.Ltd.Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SCC) PARA 4 and rightly urged that assessee's admission cannot be a conclusive evidence. Therefore, these two questions merit consideration and require to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Re. Question No.(c): 12. The issue in this question is addition of Rs.28,75,500/- by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Act as unexplained investment. Shri. Chandrashekar argued that the addition has been made on the basis of the entries found in the diary seized during se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
