Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 695 - HC - Income TaxUndisclosed income - CIT made addition made on account of jewelry seized - Tribunal deleted addition holding that block period mentioned in assessment was incorrect - Held that:- assets of silver jewellery/silver were requisitioned on 3.4.2000, but it came into possession of the authorized officer of the department on 16.02.2001, therefore, the block period would begin on 16.02.2001, and not on the date of issuance of notice under Section 132-A of the Act or on 3.4.2000, or on any previous date when the requisition was made - There was no error mentioning the block period in the notice, which can be held as invalid. We may also add here that even if a date of end of block period was wrongly mentioned, the provisions of Section 292-B would save the notice - Non mentioning of status of the assessee, would not invalidate the notice, as it was only a mistake, which was curable - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|