2015 (1) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") in ITA No.3433 and 3434/Ahd/2002, whereby the appeals preferred by the revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal. 3. The facts as well as the questions of law of both these appeals are similar, therefore, we discuss the facts of Tax Appeal No.749 of 2007 for our convenience. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of dying and printing of cloths. The assesee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 1989-90 on 4th June, 1992, declared total loss of Rs. 49,64,980/-. After scrutiny, the Assessing Officer passed order dated 15th March, 2002 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs. 15,16,263. 5. Against the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T(A). He further submitted that both the authorities namely the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have committed error in coming to the conclusion that reopening of assessment is bad in law. 7.1. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant-revenue that the issue regarding payment in cash exceeding Rs. 10,000/- was not discussed at all by the Assessing Officer when the original assessment order was passed. He, therefore, urged that this Court may allow these appeals and answer the questions raised in these appeals in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 8. We have heard learned advocate for the appellant-revenue and perused the material on record. While deciding the appeals, the Tribunal in paragraph Nos. 6.1 and 6.2 h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s being actually not covered U/s. 6DD (j), leading to the formation of belief of the escapement of income by the AO and thus, assumption of jurisdiction for re-assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has clarified that the obligation of the assessee is only to furnish the primary facts, fully and truly, and it is for the Assessing authority to seek further information/explanations, where so considered fit, or draw inferences or conclusions on facts & law (Sheth Brothers v. JCIT 251 ITR 270). In the present case too, the non-verification of the assessee's claim(s in this respect in original assessment proceedings cannot operate to its prejudice, without showing an infirmity in the disclosure(s) as made, so that the reo....