TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the penalty proceedings may not be initiated against him. We find, the fact that the surrender had been made with the condition to by peace may be relevant to and may be considered in the penalty proceedings. The present proceedings being the quantum proceedings we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal in so far as the Tribunal has sustained the addition not only on the ground of surrender made by the assessee but also after disbelieving the genuineness of the transaction of purchase and sale of shares. In view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, question nos. A and E are answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. - Income Tax Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and Company and M/s Surinder Singh Mehta which were not corroborated written any evidence? (D) Whether the ITAT was legally justified in affirming reassessment order passed by A.O. u/s 147/143(3) of the Act when there was no reason to believe nor any tangible material with A.O. to form opinion that income of the assessee has escaped assessment? (E) Whether the ITAT was legally justified in affirming reassessment order passed by A.O. u/s 147/143(3) of the Act ignoring the fact that A.O. framed assessment u/s 147 without carrying out any inquiry and without affording opportunity to assessee to cross examine the witness? At the very outset Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee stated he would be pressing questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the consequential reassessment order, ₹ 6,06,069/- was added to the undisclosed income of the assessee disbelieving the claim of capital gains. Against the assessment order, the assessee filed first an appeal that came to be decided by the CIT(Appeals), Ghaziabad vide it's order dated 16.03.2005. The CIT (Appeals) held that the additions made on the basis of information furnished by the DDIT, Gurgaon could not be sustained inasmuch as according to the CIT (Appeals) the broker S.S. Mehta had at no stage stated or admitted to have provided any accommodation entry to the assessee as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) dealt with the letter dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue submits, the addition had been sustained by the Tribunal on twin reasoning given by the assessing authority. First, the assessing officer had relied on the statement made by broker S.S. Mehta and the admission made by the assessee. Then, according to learned counsel for the revenue, the Tribunal has sustained the addition on the twin reasoning given by the assessing officer. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the first place, the validity of the reassessment proceedings was not an issue raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. That issue had been decided against the assessee by the CIT (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
