9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation [1997] 224 ITR 614 and Union of India v. Ajit Jain [2003] 260 ITR 80 (SC) may not apply to the facts of this case because they are rendered in the proceedings initiated at the instance of the assessee in a writ petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereas the present proceedings arise out of assessment proceedings and hence, are not akin to the one taken under article 226 ibid ? 2. Whether the Departmental authorities (AO) was justified in placing reliance upon certain materials collected by them from the bankers without granting an opportunity to the assessee to explain the relevancy of the material before it was used against him in the assessment proceedings ? 3. Wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the assessee, he having explained the source of the income and its lawful receipt, the Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the assessee and dropped the proceedings. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and finding the same to be of no substance, added the same in his total income under section 158BC and accordingly, taxed the same by order, dated September 29, 2000 (annexure P-2). The assessee felt aggrieved of the assessment order filed appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). By order dated March 15, 2002 (annexure A-4), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and while accepting the explanation offered by the assessee in part, i.e., the explanation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in such an event, the Assessing Officer should have accepted the explanation so offered by the assessee in relation to the source of income. It was further contended that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in rejecting the explanation of the assessee is perverse and hence, deserves to be rejected by restoring the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Placing reliance on the decision in CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation [1997] 224 ITR 614 (SC), learned counsel contended that no case for either invocation of powers conferred under section 132A was made out and in any event, a case for acceptance of explanation offered by the assessee is made out so as to exclude the said amount from being taxed under section 158BC ibid. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, there was evidence to hold that it is this amount which the assessee had carried with him on the date of seizure or must have carried with him on the date of seizure. When the amount is withdrawn from the bank from account and when it is substantial in nature then the assessee is entitled to be given the benefit of the same. The case would have been different, if there had been no withdrawal from the bank or that the withdrawal would have been of much prior date as compared to the date of seizure. In such situation, the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the assessee failed to prove the source of the amount seized. Such is not the case here. As observed supra, when the amount is withdrawn from the bank account by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
