9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Tribunal was correct in holding that Joint Commissioner while granting an approval u/s.153D of the Act, to an order passed u/s.153A of the Act, no opportunity need to be provided to the Appellant? II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding the seized material corroborates the income fixed under the head "Pooja" though seized material does not disclose such income from "Pooja"? 2. As far as first issue is concerned, we have already dismissed the connected Appeal of the Assessee listed today before us, namely, I.T.A. No.34/2017 in the case of 'Gopal. V. Pandit v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another' in which we have held that in the absence of specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing before any of the Authorities to defend his case and some assessment of tax has been made against him fastening the liability of tax against the Assessee. The Assessing Authority as well as the two Appellate Authorities who have concurrent powers of assessment as are available with the Assessing Authority, have admittedly heard the Assessee on the merits of the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law in this regard can be said to be arising on the basis of the office guidelines which are for internal purposes of the Department. They are not even statutory instructions issued u/s. 119 of the Act, which if beneficial to Assessee have been held to be binding on the Authorities of the Department. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note that the assessee in the statement had estimated the undisclosed income of Rs. 75 lakhs for 3 assessment years under consideration which matches the figures and amounts shown in the seized document relating to Pooja income of Rs. 35 lakhs, Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively. We find that there is no ambiguity in the statement of assessee regarding the Pooja income which has been clearly corroborated by the seized material. Thus when there is a sufficient evidence seized material which corroborates the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 132(4) on 23.2.2009 then the subsequent retraction of the statement by the assessee without any corroborating evidence cannot be accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
