Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 397 - HC - Income TaxProcedure for block assessment - time limit entitled to file the return - unexplained income - Held that:- Section 158BC mandates that the Assessing Officer is to serve a notice to such person requiring him to furnish a return in the prescribed form and verified in the manner stipulated. The Assessing Officer must, therefore, serve such a notice, without which an assessee would not be liable to file a return in respect of a block assessment. The assessee is also entitled, as a matter of right, to a period not less than 15 days to file such a return. The Assessing Officer does not have the power to curtail this period. Thus, even if a notice under Section 158BC(a) specifies a period less than 15 days, it would not affect an assessee's right to file a return after a period of 15 days. The present case falls under Section 158BC(a)(ii). In such a case, an assessee would be entitled to file the return within the outer limit prescribed in Section 158BC(a)(ii) namely 45 days. Thus, while it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to serve a notice requiring the assessee to file a return under Section 158BC and the assessee is entitled to not less than 15 days to file the return, the section does not indicate that if the notice inadvertently prescribes a period less than 15 days, it is void. Much less does the section indicate that the entire block proceedings relating to the block assessment would be void on account thereof. Validity of notice - Though the notice under Section 158 BC is mandatory errors such as those in the present case which do not cause the assessee any prejudice do not render either the notice or the block assessment proceedings void. Document found during the search - Held that:- It is important to note that the Assessing Officer exercised power under Section 142(2A) directing the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the explanation to Section 288(2). The special auditor analyzed this balance sheet and the other documents, that were seized, as well. Based on the same and based on the independent analysis, the three Authorities had come to the conclusion that the said amount of ₹ 40 lacs was unexplained. The Assessing Officer added the same to the appellant's income. The assessee also disowned the documents. He stated that he had nothing to do with the documents and was unaware how they were found at his place and at his residence. The fact is that the document were admittedly found at his residence Apart from the statement that he was unaware of the documents, there is no explanation for the same. The reliance of the Authorities under Section 132 (4A) is well-founded. The Authorities, therefore, rightly drew the presumption, in these circumstances, that the documents pertained to the assessee and the contents thereof are true. In any event, this is a finding of fact which does not raise a substantial question of law.The nature of the entries in documents have been sufficiently analyzed by the Authorities. They have, in fact, given the assessee credit for the amounts found in the regular books of accounts assessed the unexplained income only thereafter.
|