AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee replied that return can be submitted only after taking photocopy of the seized materials. The documents were supplied. A detailed questionnaire was issued on 20th February, 1991, but the assessee did not reply to this questionnaire nor filed return of the income before the assessing officer. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, proceeded to frame assessment to the best of his judgment. 3. The assessment officer took into consideration a loose sheet marked KS-19 taken in possession from the house of the father of the appellant. It is an account in the name of the assessee maintained by M/s Bhagwati Cold Storage (P) Ltd. of which the father of the assessee is the Managing Director and the assessee is a share holder. This account has several debit and credit entries on regular basis. The assessee was asked to explain the entries vide an interim order dated 20th February, 1990, but the assessee did not give reply. The peak credit as per the loose sheet was Rs. 1,70,000/-. 4. However, the assessee in the subsequent year of 1988-89 pointed out that it is his father who used to take money from Bhagwati Cold Storage (P) Ltd. and used to return it back when required. The Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....books of account which can be relied upon to fasten any liability on the appellant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue argued that in fact, the expression used by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that "the presumption u/s 132(4A) is also on the assessee" is surplusage. In substance, from the reading of the entire order it is clear that it is an assessment framed under Section 147 of the Act for the reason that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Therefore, it is not a case of raising a presumption, but on the basis of material found during the search which was a relevant material for framing an opinion of escaped income of the assessee. It was also argued that the judgment in V. C. Shukla case (supra) pertains to criminal trial where the rules of the Evidence Act, 1872 are strictly applicable as in such cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, but in the case of assessment under the Act, the rules of evidence as contained in Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable as the principles of natural justice alone are required to be complied with. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no substantial questions of law ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be said to have escaped assessment for that year. 12. As per the facts on record, the assessee has not filed any return for the assessment year 1987-88 even after notice was served upon him nor he responded to the questionnaire. He was asked to explain the entries in loose sheets marked as KS-19, but did not respond in respect of the relevant assessment year. However, he submitted response in the subsequent year that it was his father" account. Since the assessee has not filed return nor answered questionnaire, therefore, the assessment has been framed in terms of Section 147 of the Act as the loose sheet marked as KS-19 was found to be relevant to return a finding that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The expression used in the assessment order that "the presumption u/s 132(4A) is also on the assessee" will not change the nature of the order passed by the Assessing Officer which was passed by invoking provision of Section 147 of the Act after issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. 13. It may be mentioned that the Constitution Bench in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65 held that Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... though they may be judicial in character. The law requires that such tribunals should observe rules of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry, and if they do so, their decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground that the procedure followed was not in accordance with that, which obtains in a Court of law. Stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. If these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly followed. Vide the recent decision of this Court in New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., 1957 S C R 98 : ( (S) AIR 1957 S C 232) (C), where this question in discussed." 15. In view ....