TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted on 13th March, 1979, 22nd March, 1979 and 24th March, 1979 were sufficient opportunity to the assessee for examining 247 documents ? 2. On 13th Aug., 1976 a raid was conducted on the residential premises of the assessee, who is an individual, as a result of which 244 documents were seized. As some of these documents related to transactions relevant to the asst. yr. 1976-77 in question, the ITO after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee passed the assessment order, whereby these transactions were totalled at ₹ 4,24,396 and profits were estimated at ₹ 42,440 at the rate of ₹ 10%. To this profit of ₹ 42,440 a sum of ₹ 50,000 was added an unexplained investment in the unexplained busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut reference to any evidence or material. In this connection it is appropriate to refer the following passage from the aforesaid decision. As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the ITO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law, but there that agreement ends; because it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub-s. (3) of s. 23 of the Act, the ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. As the reply submitted by the assessee was vague and the learned counsel of the assessee expressed his inability to see and explain the books in the absence of the assessee, the case was adjourned to 26th March, 1979 so as to enable the assessee to explain. However, on 24th march, 1979 the assessee appeared before the Assessing officer, even though the case was fixed for the 26th March, 1979. The assessee was as such afforded full opportunity to explain and in that connection the case was adjourned several times on his request. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Appellate Tribunal were fully justified to hold that the assessee was given full opportunity but he avoided giving full and correct explanation. The submission of the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
