9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n short, "Tribunal"], concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2000-01. 2. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal was required to deal with the appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue as well as the respondent/assessee. 3. A challenge had been laid, before the Tribunal, to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] dated 16.03.2007. 4. Broadly, the appeals arose in the backdrop of certain additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO), which were reversed on merits by the CIT(A), via order dated 16.03.2007. 5. On the question of law as to whether the reassessment proceedings could, at all, have been triggered against the respondent/assessee, the CIT(A) ruled against the respondent/assessee. It is this that led to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment proceedings under the old regime, i.e., under the provisions of Section 158BC of the Act. 12.1 It is in these proceedings that the AO made certain additions to the respondent/assessee's declared income, which, as indicated above, was "nil". 12.2 This position was reflected in the block assessment order dated 27.02.2004. The block assessment order spanned over 01.04.1995 and 26.06.2004. 13. The record shows that on 12.07.2004, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner on account the discovery of certain material during the course of the block assessment. 13.1 This is embedded in the reasons to believe framed by the AO on 12.07.2004. The following were the four aspects which formed the basis for triggering no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 confirmed the order of the CIT(A) dated 24.12.2004 passed in block assessment proceedings. 18. Furthermore, the record discloses that the AO passed an assessment order on 16.03.2006 in the Section 147/148 proceedings, whereby, he sustained the four additions referred to hereinabove, based on which the proceedings had been commenced. 18.1 The result was that the respondent/assessee's income, which was declared as "nil", was reassessed at Rs. 11,70,40,000/-. 19. Besides this, a notice imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also issued, and interest was levied under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. 20. Aggrieved, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), via order dated 16.03.2007, delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en during the block assessment proceedings, as there is, in law, no impediment in adopting such an approach. In this regard, Mr Agarwal relied upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon, [2010] 188 Taxmann 113 (SC). 27. Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, on the other hand, contends to the contrary. 28. In our view, this aspect of the matter need not detain us since both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have dealt with the matter on merits, as well. 29. Insofar as the merits of the matter are concerned, the Tribunal has, after perusing the record, sustained the view taken by the CIT(A) qua all four additions. 30. The relevant observations qua the merits have been made by the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made an addition at Rs. 9.04 crores. Matter was carried in appeal and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24.12.2004 deleted the addition, holding that in the absence of any material found during the search in relation to the property, the addition cannot be sustained. These observations of the Ld. CIT(A) in that order dated 24.12.2004 in Appeal No. DEL/CIT(A)-2/0304/235 are confirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in IT(SS) No. 122/Del/2005 by way of order dated 03.04.2017. All these facts *are verifiable from record. 8. Now the question is whether the AD can record his reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, basing on the issues that are already considered in the block assessment proceedings. A reading of the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2.25 crores was paid by way of cheque No. 488533 drawn on Union Bank of India, Cannaught Place, New Delhi and the said cheque was encashed on 22.12.2006. However, since the business of store proposed by the firm had not started, the brokerage was debited to the Land & Building A/c but not to the Profit & Loss A/c. On the face of this record of facts basing on which the Ld. CIT(A) returned his findings, we are in agreement with such findings that the addition of Rs. 4.5 lacs is liable to be deleted. For these reasons, we find that the deletion of all the four additions by the Ld. CIT(A) is perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference." 31. Having examined the record, we find that the Tribunal has, rightly, sustained the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
