TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT A. K. SIKRI. J. - The appellant before us is an individual who has been regularly assessed to the income tax for last number of years. His source of income is the salary, rent and share income from registered firm M/s General Automobiles. 2. In the present appeal we are concerned with the assessment year 1993-94. The appellant had filed his return of income for this year on 13th March, 1995 declaring total income of Rs.27,054/-. This assessment was reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 30th May, 2001. The reason given for reassessment was the adjudication order passed by the Collector of Customs on 11th January, 1994 and information of the said adjudication having received by the Assessing Officer from the Collector of Customs. 3. It so happened that certain goods namely consignment of Ball Bearings consigned to one M/s V.A. Enterprises were intercepted at cargo on 4th March, 1993 and were placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Said consignment related to the imports made by M/s Om Prakash Khandelwal, 2923, Khurd Sitaram Bazar, Delhi. The total value of the consignment was estimated at Rs.17,48,969/- whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29th February, 2008 upholding the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as well as quantum assessment order as made by the CIT(A). 7. Still aggrieved present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act in this Court. 8. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the validity of notice under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act as well as the orders on merits whereby addition regarding unexplained investment made by the AO under Section 69 of the Act have been upheld by the Tribunal. On both these orders appeal was admitted framing following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction by initiating proceeding u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that in the absence of independent application of mind of the assessing officer could not be held to have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment? 2. Whether on true and correct interpretation of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect and decided to issue notice under Section 148. Reasons which are given by the Assessing Officer for initiating these proceedings are his own and amply depict his independent application of mind as is clear from the copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the following manner: "DDI (Inv.) Unit III (2), New Delhi has sent information in the case of Shri Om Parkash Khandelwal, Prop., VA Enterprise, 2923, Sitaram Bazar, Delhi (copy of the order of Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi dated 11.5.1999 through CIT-V, New Delhi. The CIT-V, New Delhi has directed to take necessary action in case to Shri J.S. Anand, D-14/A-I, Model Town, New Delhi who is connected with this case. Order of Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo) dated 11.5.1999 reveal that M/s VA Enterprises, 2921, Khurd Sitaram Bazar, Delhi as proprietary concern of Shri Om Prakash Khandelwal, do 2923, Khurd Sitaram Bazar, Delhi imported Ball Bearing vide AWB No.098-6505-0635 dated 21.12.1992 vide B/E No.210189 dated 26.2.1993. This consignment consist of 1,40,000 pieces of Ball Bearing No.608 of Bore DIA8MM and 38,000 pieces of Ball Bearing No.627 of Bore DIA7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raymonds Woollen Mills-236 ITR 34 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in determining whether the commencement of the reassessment proceedings was valid, it was only to be seen that there was a prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We find that there was a material on record on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has formed opinion that there is escapement of income in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration. In the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.- 291 ITR 500 (SC) the Apex Court held the same view. 13. We thus decide this question against the appellant/assessee. QEUSITON NO. 2 14. Finding of fact was recorded by the Commissioner that real importer in this case was the appellant and not M/s V.A. Enterprises. In appeal, the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner regarding valuation and further determination of duty, confiscation, adoption, fine and penalty etc. Fresh orders dated 11th May, 1999 were passed wherein the Commissioner held that it was Sh. J.S. Anand who nego ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
