Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 47 - AT - Income TaxNotice u/s 148 - Sanction of appropriate authority - Violation u/s 151(2) - Scope of Section 292BB - Benamidar - Benami Business in the name of other - Held that:- On perusal of the sanction taken u/s 151(2) of the Act before issuance of notice u/s 148, the ground has been taken by the assessee without consulting the assessment record, which in fact, should not have been taken. In any case, there is no violation as contemplated u/s 151(2) of the Act - Decided against Assessee. Scope of Section 292BB - Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee which was duly served. In pursuance to the said notice, the assessee appeared before the assessing authority and participated in the re-assessment proceedings on various dates and also cross-examined the witnesses who were summoned and their statements were recorded - According to this provision, where an assessee appears in any proceedings or cooperates in any enquiry relating to assessment or reassessment proceedings, it shall be presumed that the assessee has been validly served and it shall not be open to the assessee to object that the notice was not served upon him or was not served in time or was served upon him in an improper manner. However, an exception to the aforesaid presumption has been made in a case where such objection has been raised before completion of assessment or reassessment. The provision has been made effective from 1.4.2008 and therefore, shall apply to all pending proceedings - It is not disputed that the assessee had appeared before the AO on various dates and participated in the reassessment proceedings before the finalization and no objection regarding issuance and service of notice under Section 143(2) was raised before the AO - Following decision of CIT vs. Ram Narain Bansal [2011 (7) TMI 527 - Punjab and Haryana High Court] - Decided against assessee. Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Amount deposited to bank - Benami transaction - Held that:- assessee substantiating his bonafides had duly brought it to the notice of the various authorities before whom the proceedings had been going on, that the said misusing of the 'Bank account' in itself stood substantiated from the very fact that a perusal of the 'Withdrawals' effected from the said account, as a result stands gathered on a perusal of the 'Cheques' vide which withdrawals had been made from the said 'Bank account' of the assessee, in itself reveals that there was not even a 'Solitary situation', wherein any 'withdrawal' pertaining to the impugned amounts so credited to the bank a/c on the assessee was ever carried out by the assessee and the said factual matrix had been appreciated by the other such authorities before whom the proceedings as regards the aforesaid issue are going on. Facts therein itself establishes the bonafides of the assessees contention that the latter was not in any way connected but through out remained unaware of such misuse of his Bank a/c by certain third parties - approach of the A.O. in going by the impugned statement of the said Sh.Satbir Singh wherein the latter, merely in order to save his skin had falsely implicated the assessee, by saying that he had given signed Blank cheques to the assessee. The acceptance of the said statement of the said Sh. Satbir Singh by the A.O. wherein the said person in order to save himself had pleaded that he was poor person and could not carry out such a business, without there being any evidence which could go to substantiate the latters assertions and contentions and therein giving him a clean chit and drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee, primarily on the basis of the statement of Sh. Satbir Singh, is totally unfair and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law., specifically when the said Sh. Satbir Singh is a prime accused before the 'Custom Authorities'. Thus, framing of 'Substantive assessment' in the hands of the assessee, by presuming that it was the latter who was carrying on the business and the said Sh. Satbir Singh was only a benamidar is an assumption of the AO , which is devoid and bereft of any force, in the absence of any documentary evidence - Therefore, decided in favour of assessee.
|