TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antiate his case in spite of issuance of notice and grant of opportunity cannot be heard to contend that the order is bad for want of consideration of his contention. No further notice was required to be issued in a matter of this nature where the opportunity is granted pursuant to Exhibit P3 order in revision. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. - WP (C). No. 11199 OF 2013(Y) - - - Dated:- 19-12-2019 - THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI.D.S.SREEKUMARAN SMT.T.S.MAYA FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX JUDGMENT 1.This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:- i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the shares of the petitioner's brothers were purchased by the petitioner by sale deeds dated 27.10.1998 and 22.02.1999. The apparent consideration of the sale of the shares was ₹ 3 lakhs. An enquiry was conducted into the transaction and in a sworn statement given under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act on 12.2.2000, the petitioner admitted that he had purchased 2/3rd of shares for a total consideration of ₹ 60 lakhs against the apparent consideration of ₹ 3 lakhs and that he had raised personal loans from several persons for the said purpose. It is stated that the assessment was completed on 19.3.2004 on the basis of the sworn statement. A revision petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were initiated pursuant to Exhibit P3 on 24.4.2006. Copies of cash flow statements, sworn statements recorded from assessee and from creditors were forwarded to the petitioner and by letter dated 24.4.2007, the petitioner was given an opportunity to crossexamine the loan creditors and to produce fresh evidence if any. It is stated that the petitioner failed to respond to the above letter. It is stated that on 19.12.2006 the petitioner had appeared before the assessing officer pursuant to a further notice and had sought adjournment of the assessment proceedings for two months. However, since the time limit for completion of assessment was expiring on 31.12.2006, the assessment was completed by Exhibit P5(a) and a copy of the order along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the legality of the assessment. It is seen from Exhibit P3 that the assessment carried out had been set aside by the revisional authority on three grounds. The first was that the Assessing Officer did not prepare and give the cash flow statement to the assessee before the assessment was completed. Secondly, it was found that the records do not show that copies of the statements recorded from the creditors were given to the assessee. Thirdly, it was found that no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine the creditors who had contradicted the assessee regarding the payments. It is not in dispute that Exhibit P2 order of assessment contained a cash flow statement at paragraph 5 thereof. The contention of the assessee was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
