TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the C.O., the assessee has demonstrated that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on merits. 4. To briefly stratify the case, during the course of proceedings under section 230A, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee purchased a property at new No. 106, old No. 39, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai-20 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,300 vide sale deed 31-10-1995. The property was purchased by the assessee from his father Shri O.M. Umar Mohideen. In addition to the sale price as mentioned in the sale deed, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee would have spent money on Stamp Duty and Registration expenses, etc. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer, the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport submitted that, "A summons under section 131 was issued to the loan creditors. Since the creditors except Shri S. Ahmed Ibrahim, are Muslim women, they could not appear in person. Shri S. Ahmed Ibrahim is now employed at Libya. Hence, an inspector was deputed to verify the facts. All the creditors have given in writing that they have given a loan amount of Rs. 20,000 in cash but no evidence were filed. None of them are assessed to tax and they do not have any independent source of income. In respect of Shri S. Ahmed Ibrahim, the assessee Shri Shahul Hameed filed a bank statement stating that cash was drawn from the bank. There is no proof that the cash drawn from the bank was actually given to Mr. Shahul Hameed. Now, Mr. A. Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further placed reliance upon Karnataka High Court decision in the case of B.M. Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka [1996] 222 ITR 223. 9. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that in view of the above two decisions, and in particular, decision of the territorial High Court, it has to be held that in the present case, the amended provision would apply. The assessment should have been completed by 31-3-2002. Since the assessment has been completed on 13-2-2003, the same is barred by limitation and has to be cancelled. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelled the assessment made by the Assessing Officer as barred by limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, 2001 with effect from 1-6-2001. Notice in this case was issued on 7-11-2000 and assessment order was passed on 13-2-2003. As per the pre-amended provision, the assessment could have been completed by 31-3-2003 whereas as per the amended provision, the assessment had to be completed on or before 31-3-2002. Thus, the assessment completed is in time as per the pre-amended provision but barred by limitation as per the amended provision. The question that is to be decided is whether the amended provision would apply to the present case or the original provision would apply to the present case. 14. We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chettinad Corpn.(P.) Ltd. has referred to Hon'ble Apex Courts observat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be completed within two years from the assessment and that the said vested right could only be affected by express retrospective amendment. Section 275 being only in the nature of a procedural provision, there is no question of any vested right accruing to any assessee by reason of the assessment being completed on any particular date. It is now well-settled that there is no vested right in any procedural matter. In the present case, therefore, the extended period of limitation would alone apply." 16. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court as aforesaid, we have to examine whether the period prescribed under the unamended section 153(2) can be considered as a statute of repose or a procedural o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) genuineness of the transactions. If all these are proved the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove that the amounts belonged to the assessee. 19. Considering the present case through the prism of aforesaid, we find that for the sum of Rs. 2,18,000 received from Shri S. Ahmed Ibrahim, the assessee has discharged his onus. As Shri S. Ahmed Ibrahim works abroad and the said amount is shown as withdrawal in his bank statement and he has given a letter to the effect that he has given the said sum to the assessee. Now, the burden is shifted to the revenue to prove that the same is not true and that the amount actually belonged to the assessee. This, in our opinion, has not been done. As such, genuineness of this credit is accepted. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
