9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the assessees are husband and wife and appeals have common issues. So, their appeals have been decided together. On 23.11.2006 and 04.12.2006, both the appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether no opportunity of hearing is required to be given by the Commissioner of Income Tax,prior to the approval under/section 158-BG of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and was the Tribunal justified in holding to the contrary. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that no direction/instruction could be given u/s 158 BG to the assessing officer while granting approval to the assessment order. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of assessment for the block period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner [or Deputy Commissioner] or an Assistant Director [or Deputy Director] as the case may be: Provided that no such order shall be passed without the previous approval of - (a) the Commissioner or Direction, as the case may be, in respect of search initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132 A, after the 30th day of June, 1995 but before the 1st days of January, 1997; (b) The [Joint] Commissioner or the [Joint] Director, as the case may be, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. So, no direction was given and no enhancement was made out. The CIT has pointed out only the correct legal position. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases:- 1. Sakthivel Bankers vs. Assist. Commissioner; 255 ITR 144 (Mad.); 2. Sree Ram Medical & Surgical Agencies vs. CIT; (2000) 243 ITR 425 (AP); 3. Lakshmi Jewellery vs. Deputy CIT; (2001) 252 ITR 712 (Mad.); and 4. Rishabchand Bhansali vs. Deputy CIT; (2004) 267 ITR 577 (Kar). On the other hand, Sri S.D.Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Abhijeet Banerjee, learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the instant case, while granting the approval, the CIT did not provide any opportunity to the assessee. He further submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (supra), it was held that : "... the Commissioner of Income-tax before making an order approving the order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer in exercise of his powers under Section 158BG(a) need not give a hearing to the assessee". Similarly, in the case of Shree Rama Medical and Surgical Agencies vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), it was observed that : "... The provisions of Section 158BG do not contemplate that the Commissioner should come face to face with the assessee while according approval for the proposed assessment under Chapter XIB-B of the Act. Apart from the language of the provision, the nature of the functions confided to the Commissioner is inconsistent with the application of the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
