TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is given opportunity to have his say in the mater with regard to the said statement and its contents, it cannot be said that petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Hence, it has to be held that the impugned order is passed without providing any fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Ashok Mittal [ 2014 (4) TMI 208 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein also petitioner therein had specifically objected for the assessment proceedings stating that he had no transaction with either Mukesh Choksi or any other related companies, but the Assessing Officer had solely proceeded on the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition briefly stated are, that petitioner submitted his return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 on 22.05.2007 declaring his income at Rs.2,15,155/-. The said return was accepted. Subsequently, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2014 for re-opening the assessment. In response, petitioner requested the respondent that the return filed earlier could be treated as return in response to the notice. Thereafter, respondent concluded the assessment on 30.06.2014 by adding a sum of Rs.6,34,705/- which is stated to be the amount pertaining to certain shares purchased by the petitioner out of the income that had allegedly escaped assessment. Accordingly, tax and interest has been levied by the respondent. It is this order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also points out by way of objection that in the absence of specific allegations made against the petitioner in the so-called sworn statement, the same could not have been made basis to pass the assessment order against the petitioner. 5. Despite such objections raised, respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that an amount of Rs.6,34,705/- which reflected the sale proceeds of shares was required to be brought to tax under the head Other Sources of Income . It is this amount which according to the findings recorded by the respondent was attributed to the petitioner in the so-called sworn statement given by Mukesh Choksi. 6. Thus, it is apparent that without furnishing a copy of the statement stated to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
