TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER Both the appeals have been filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the judgements and orders dated 15.10.1999, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, in ITA Nos.1394 and 1395 of 1997, for the Block Period 1987-88 to 1995-96 (upto 14.09.1996). Both 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT while giving approval under Section 158 BG, so, no enhancement can be made out. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the instant appeals. With this background, Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the Department read out the provisions of Section 158 BG which on reproduction, read as under:- "The order 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, oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in para-5 the amount was Rs.10 Lacs which was found recorded on the loose sheets. The A.O. has made the addition of Rs.9 lacs and left out remaining Rs.1 lac. So, the CIT has directed to compute the entire amount of Rs.10 lacs. Further, he submits that in para-7, the rate of tax was fixed @ 60% which is a statutory provision. 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. Risha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while giving the approval by the CIT as per the ratio laid down in the case of Rishabchand Bhansali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) (supra), where it was held that being an administrative action, assessee is not entitled to opportunity of being heard. Further, in the case of Lakshmi Jewellary vs. Deputy Commissioner 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 provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
