TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders timely assessment of recovered assets</h1> <h3>Shri A.N. Dyaneswaran Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, II (4), The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, II (4), Chennai</h3> Shri A.N. Dyaneswaran Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, II (4), The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, II (4), Chennai ... Issues Involved:1. Delay in initiating reassessment proceedings.2. Violation of principles of natural justice.3. Procedural irregularities in the assessment process.4. Tax liability on undisclosed assets.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Initiating Reassessment ProceedingsThe petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after an unreasonable delay of six years from the High Court's order dated 03.09.2007. The petitioner cited several precedents, including Manik Chand Burman vs. Income-Tax Officer and K. Iswara Bhat vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, to support the contention that reassessment should be completed within a reasonable time even when no specific time limit is prescribed. The Court acknowledged the delay but emphasized that the Income Tax Department's appeal to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed due to delay, contributed to the postponement.2. Violation of Principles of Natural JusticeThe petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings violated principles of natural justice as the Department failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses who had given statements against the petitioner. The High Court's Division Bench had previously directed that the petitioner be given such an opportunity. The Court noted that the Income Tax Department's failure to allow cross-examination was a significant procedural lapse. However, the Court also recognized the impracticality of summoning witnesses after such a long period.3. Procedural Irregularities in the Assessment ProcessThe original assessment order was criticized for procedural irregularities, including:- No opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses.- Reliance on statements from only 23 out of 994 licensees.- Lack of corroborative evidence.- Paucity of time for a thorough investigation due to statutory deadlines.The Division Bench had remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing these irregularities. The Court reiterated these points, highlighting the necessity for a fair and thorough reassessment process.4. Tax Liability on Undisclosed AssetsDespite procedural issues, the Court emphasized that the petitioner is liable to pay tax on the undisclosed assets (cash, jewelry, and valuables) seized during the search. The Court stated that these assets must be taxed in the hands of the petitioner, irrespective of the procedural lapses in the reassessment process.Conclusion:The Court directed the Income Tax Department to complete the assessment concerning the assets recovered from the petitioner within three months, allowing the petitioner to file additional representations and ensuring an opportunity for a hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, emphasizing the need for a fair reassessment process while upholding the tax liability on undisclosed assets.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
