9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of undisclosed income. 2. Lack of jurisdiction and authority. 3. Excessive tax demand. 4. Overlapping and double assessment. 5. Admission of additional grounds and evidence. 6. Violation of principles of natural justice. Summary: Issue 1: Determination of Undisclosed Income The assessee contested the determination of a total aggregate income of Rs. 25,50,69,506 as undisclosed income for the block period, against nil income returned. The additions were made under various heads such as other valuable assets (shares), bogus shareholdings, loans advanced by various companies/firms, consolidated undisclosed income of various companies, sales made by B.P. Marketing Ltd., aggregate of bank deposits/credits in bank accounts of the members of the appellant and others, and unexplained investments in immovable properties, among others. Issue 2: Lack of Jurisdiction and Authority The assessee argued that the assessment was vitiated in law due to lack of jurisdiction, want of authority of law, lack of evidence, and failure on the part of the AO to discharge his burden of proof. The assessee also claimed that the CIT X Delhi had given approval mechanically and without applying his mind independently, and that principles of natural justice were violated. Issue 3: Excessive Tax Demand The assessee contended that the total tax demand of Rs. 15,30,41,703 determined by the impugned block assessment was bad, illegal, untenable, and very excessive. Issue 4: Overlapping and Double Assessment The assessee claimed that various additions made by the AO overlapped each other, amounting to double assessment, which is not permissible under the law. The principles of telescoping were ignored. Issue 5: Admission of Additional Grounds and Evidence The assessee sought permission to raise additional grounds of appeal and filed an application u/r 29 for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidence included affidavits from directors/promoters and statements showing transactions of sales and purchases of B.P. Marketing Ltd. The assessee argued that this evidence was crucial as it was the first appeal before the Tribunal against the block assessment order. Issue 6: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The Tribunal found that the statements of shareholders/directors/persons were recorded by the AO at the back of the assessee, and the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine them. The Tribunal held that the statements could not be used against the assessee without allowing cross-examination, as per the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the AO made double additions and did not properly link the additions with the material discovered during the search. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment was framed in violation of the principles of natural justice and set aside the assessment in toto. The AO was directed to allow proper opportunity to the assessee to rebut the evidence and to place any material in support thereof. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
