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

        Assessee's Appeals Allowed, Assessments Time-Barred

        M/s. P.N. Gadgil & Co. (Gold) Versus ACIT, Central Circle-1 (2) And DCIT, Central Circle-1 (2), Pune

        M/s. P.N. Gadgil & Co. (Gold) Versus ACIT, Central Circle-1 (2) And DCIT, Central Circle-1 (2), Pune - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of search action under section 132 and jurisdiction under section 153A.
        2. Validity of the reference for special audit under section 142(2A) and the assessment period.
        3. Addition of unexplained investment in gold.
        4. Addition on account of purity gain.
        5. Addition of majuri charges to stock valuation.
        6. Disallowance under section 40A(3).
        7. Failure to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard under the proviso to section 142(2A).

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of Search Action and Jurisdiction under Section 153A:
        The assessee contended that the proceedings under section 153A were wrongly initiated as there was no search conducted but only a survey operation. The CIT(A) held that the search action under section 132 was conducted on the assessee firm, justifying the jurisdiction under section 153A. The Tribunal did not specifically adjudicate this issue due to the resolution of the appeal on other grounds.

        2. Validity of the Reference for Special Audit under Section 142(2A):
        The assessee argued that the reference for special audit was invalid, citing the Rajasthan High Court decision in Bajarang Textiles [294 ITR 561]. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the special audit reference, extending the assessment period accordingly. The Tribunal focused on whether the Assessing Officer (AO) provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before directing the special audit. It was found that the CIT, not the AO, issued the show cause notice, violating the statutory requirement. Consequently, the Tribunal held the assessments as time-barred due to this procedural lapse.

        3. Addition of Unexplained Investment in Gold:
        The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of unexplained investment in gold amounting to Rs. 48,07,395/-. The assessee argued that the closing stock as on 31.03.1999 was undervalued, negating the need for any addition. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the resolution of the appeal on other grounds.

        4. Addition on Account of Purity Gain:
        The CIT(A) upheld an addition of Rs. 41,06,948/- based on the special auditor's report, including undisclosed sales and excess stock. The assessee contended that no incriminating evidence was found during the search, and the special auditor's report did not consider the correct facts. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the resolution of the appeal on other grounds.

        5. Addition of Majuri Charges to Stock Valuation:
        The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 6,68,464/- for majuri charges added to the stock valuation. The assessee argued that this method was consistently accepted by the department over the years. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the resolution of the appeal on other grounds.

        6. Disallowance under Section 40A(3):
        The CIT(A) confirmed a disallowance of Rs. 57,535/- under section 40A(3) for payments presumed to exceed Rs. 20,000/-. The assessee contended that the disallowance was based on presumptions without concrete evidence. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the resolution of the appeal on other grounds.

        7. Failure to Grant Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard:
        The Tribunal focused on the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the failure of the AO to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before directing the special audit under section 142(2A). The Tribunal cited precedents, including the Pune Bench decision in Vilsons Particle Board Industries Ltd. and the Supreme Court judgment in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT, emphasizing the statutory requirement for the AO to provide such an opportunity. The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were time-barred due to the procedural lapse, rendering other grounds academic.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees on the legal issue of the validity of the assessment due to the failure of the AO to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard under the proviso to section 142(2A). Consequently, the other grounds of appeal were dismissed as academic. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as it became an academic exercise following the resolution of the assessee's appeals.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found