2012 (9) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the subject matter of these appeals is common. The question of law sought to be urged is whether the Tribunal fell into error in not remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for providing opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant and material documents instead of deleting the addition. 2. Briefly the facts are that pursuant to the search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act", for short) on 15.12.2004 in the premises of one Brij Mohan Gupta, certain documents and the materials were found and seized. On the basis of the statements of his son and accountant, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the assessees herein. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer pl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. M. Pirai Choodi, (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). In this case the Court had disapproved the approach of the concerned High Court which set-aside an order of reassessment on the ground of the assessee not having been given opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are as follows: - ".......We are of the view that the High Court should not have set aside the entire assessment order. At the highest, the High Court should have directed the Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the concerned witness. Be that as it may, we are of the view that, even on this particular aspect, the assessee could have gone in appeal to the Commissioner of Inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be accepted as evidence in a court of law, but there the agreement ends; because it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under Section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab. In this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not....