Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 623 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening u/s 147 - satisfaction note by the A.O. relates to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and not u/s 147 - curable defect u/s 292B - HELD THAT:- The assumption of jurisdiction would begin from the recording of satisfaction by the A.O. that certain income has escaped assessment pertaining to a particular assessment year. Admittedly, the assessee has not challenged the validity of notice u/s 148. The assessee was duly supplied satisfaction recorded u/s 153C of the Act. The assessee considered it as a satisfaction recorded u/s 148 of the Act and filed return in response thereto. This fact is not controverted by the assessee. It is also a fact that the manner in which the satisfaction u/s 147 is required to be recorded is not prescribed under the law. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and under the peculiarity of the facts of the present case, in our considered view section 292B comes to rescue of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the grounds of the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed. Addition based on diary of third party - addition without confronting the same with the assessee and giving opportunity of cross examination - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the addition has been made on the basis of the statement of employee of one Shri Nilesh Ajmera recorded in relation to the certain transaction recorded in the diary of Shri Nilesh Ajmera. The assessee was not confronted with the employee of Shri Nilesh Ajmera nor any cross examination of Nilesh Ajmera or his employee was given to the assessee. The addition is based on a diary of a third party. As relying on SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI [2019 (2) TMI 733 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] evidence in the nature of diary or loose papers which are not maintained in the course of business by the third party would not be a good piece of evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessing officer was not justified in making the addition without confronting the same with the assessee and giving opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|