Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 980 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - assessee having not been provided the copy of the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment u/s. 147, but only the gist thereof - Held that:- The omission of the last sentence is not a reason itself, but only the concluding sentence, stating of the foregoing as being the reasons for belief as to escapement of income. Inasmuch as the same does not bear any reason, we do not find that it could be said that the assessee had not been conveyed the reasons as to escapement of income, or had been so either in part or only the gist thereof, as alleged. That the same are only reasons leading to the belief as to the escapement of income is evident and implied. What are these then and for and toward what are they being given, or given as, etc. would be the queries arising out of the assessee’s clearly unreasonable and unconvincing stand. Further, even assuming, without admitting, a debate, it would preclude section 254(2). The said ground is accordingly rejected. Non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the matter, who has stated to have reopened simply on the basis of the findings of the DDIT(Inv.) - Held that:- there was material available with the AO on the basis of which a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment could be formed (paragraph 2.12). The same is a finding of fact, and for which the tribunal tranverses, as apparent from the discussion, through the said materials, issuing its final findings at paragraph 2.15. The assessee has also, vide ground 3(iii) referred to the tribunal’s observation that assessment had been reopened on the basis of section 132(4) statement made at the time of search which was on oath (at paragraph 2.14). It is stated that in so stating, the tribunal has overlooked that there was a survey at the vendor’s premises prior to the relevant search. How would, we wonder, that contradict or impugn the said observation by the tribunal in any manner? What the tribunal states is again a matter of fact, borne out by the reasons recorded and the material on record. Two, the fact that the search was preceeded by a survey, on the contrary, is defeating of the assessee’s case inasmuch as, clearly, material was found in survey leading to the search. The statement by the tribunal, it must be appreciated, was made while considering the assessee’s plea of there being no material for forming, prima-facie, a reasonable belief as to escapement of income. Whether, rather, there is material on record establishing the said survey is itself not known, for the assessee to have raised the plea, which though we have found as irrelevant. The ground is without basis Each of the arguments raised by the assessee stand duly considered by the tribunal. Finding/s of fact, rendered upon appreciation of evidences, could not be revisited in rectification proceedings. We, accordingly, find no ground for the same. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine the AO’s witnesses and, thus, a violation of the principle of natural justice - Held that: The argument is misplaced. For all we know, the cross-examination may not have been asked for, being in the nature of deposition/s. The tribunal has considered the argument (refer para 3.10), and in its view the disallowance had not been affected only on the basis of the said statements and, two, that all the material had been duly confronted to the assessee. It also clearly states that the rendering of the services by the companies could not be accepted on the basis of affidavits. The said ground is, again, without merit. - Decided against assessee
|