Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal decision upheld, block assessment quashed due to procedural errors</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus LATE SH. RAJ PAL BHATIA & Others</h3> COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus LATE SH. RAJ PAL BHATIA & Others - [2011] 237 CTR 1, [2011] 333 ITR 315 Issues Involved:1. Legality of Block Assessment proceedings under Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of the statement of Smt. Surksha Charla as evidence.3. Requirement of satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer.4. Opportunity for cross-examination of the witness.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Block Assessment proceedings under Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act:The Tribunal concluded that the entire assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction as the provisions of Section 158 BD were not properly invoked. The Tribunal noted that no books of accounts, documents, or assets pertaining to the assessees were found or seized during the search at the premises of Mr. & Mrs. Charla. The only material considered was the statement of Smt. Surksha Charla, which does not qualify as 'books of accounts or other documents or assets' under Section 158 BD. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not have validly initiated proceedings under Section 158 BD, rendering the entire assessment proceedings illegal.2. Validity of the statement of Smt. Surksha Charla as evidence:The Tribunal observed that the statement of Smt. Surksha Charla, recorded during the search, could not be treated as 'books of accounts or other documents or assets' under Section 158 BD. The statement was recorded during the search and not found or seized as a document. Hence, it could not be the basis for invoking Section 158 BD. The Tribunal also noted that Smt. Surksha Charla retracted her statement, and her subsequent statement clarified the retraction. Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized that the statement alone, without corroborating evidence, could not justify the block assessment.3. Requirement of satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer:The Tribunal and the High Court highlighted the necessity for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the one searched. This satisfaction must be based on material found during the search and must be recorded in writing. In this case, no such satisfaction note was produced, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 158 BD. The absence of this note rendered the proceedings invalid. The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT, which underscored the importance of recording satisfaction before invoking Section 158 BD.4. Opportunity for cross-examination of the witness:The Tribunal noted that the assessees requested an opportunity to cross-examine Smt. Surksha Charla, whose statement was relied upon by the Assessing Officer. However, this opportunity was not provided. The Tribunal held that without affording the assessees the chance to cross-examine the witness, the statement could not be admitted as evidence. This procedural lapse further weakened the case against the assessees.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the block assessment proceedings, emphasizing the improper invocation of Section 158 BD, the invalidity of relying solely on the statement of Smt. Surksha Charla, the necessity of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer, and the requirement to provide an opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found