TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common order. 3. The material facts of the case disclose that one K. Venkatesh Dutt-assessee (cross-objector) had filed returns for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. Intelligence Wing conducted raid and on search c the premises of the same, some incriminating documents were seized. The assessee filed a revised return for the assessment year 1986-8 7 showing h income as Rs. 62,00,000 as against Rs. 30,00,000 as mentioned in the earlier returns. The assessee had claimed certain deductions. The assessing authority (A.O.) called upon the assessee to produce necessary documents to justify the deductions claimed. Documents were not produced by the assessee. The assessing authority assessed the income of the assessee Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved in the cross-objection is an independent issue and that the Tribunal had power and jurisdiction to make assessment. There was also delay in filing the cross-objections. The Tribunal condoned the delay. 6. The State argued before the Tribunal in the cross-objection that the assessee has no right to retract from the revised return filed before the Assessing Officer and that the revised return should bind the assessee in law. 7. The assessee had produced all the accounts of ICA and KSD to show that the items of income included in the revised returns pertain to the income of ICA and KSD and does not pertain to him. The State had also filed documents found in the search conducted and also the documents led by the assessee with the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er also be excluded from the income of assessee for all the three years. (d) Any other income of the assessee earned individually will be retained as the same is not challenged in appeal before us and no arguments are advanced for excluding or reducing the same. (e) Interest under section 139(8) and 215/217 will be charged as per law considering the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 759. In the result the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections of the assessee are partly allowed." 8. The State aggrieved by the operative order at paragraph 13(a) to 13(c) has filed these appeals. 9. The following questions of law was proposed by the State for consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and in the case of one other entity reference application before this hon'ble court had been filed? (5) Whether the Tribunal was correct in condoning the delay in presenting the cross-objections when no cogent reasons had been assigned by the assessee and especially when the main appeal filed by the Revenue had already been rejected and consequently the cross-objection itself could not be entertained? 10. This court by order dated January 27, 2004, admitted these appeals for consideration of substantial questions Nos. 3 and 4 formulated by the State. Re. Question No. 3: It is a well-settled principle that when an assessee files any return or revised return, he/she is always entitled to in law to show that the return filed is by b....