TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of law arising from the Order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "B", dated 27.07.2016 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 2. The learned Counsel for the Assessee has suggested the following four substantial questions of law in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Appellant. I. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that Addl./Joint Commissioner while granting an approval u/s.153D of the Act, to an order to be passed u/s.153A of the Act, no opportunity need to be provided to the Appellant? II. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding for fixing time for comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not give any notice and opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before granting approval to the Draft Assessment Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present case. 4. Against the aforesaid Assessment Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the matter was taken by the Assessee before the first Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] before whom also the same question was raised, but the first Appellate Authority negatived the said contention of the Assessee on the ground that the provisions of Section 153D of the Act, in its term, does not require any such opportunity of hearing to be given to the Assessee by the Authority who is to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of Section 144BA." 7. Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, however, has submitted that there being no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 153D of the Act in giving any such opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before granting approval to the Draft Assessment Order to be passed by the lower Assessing Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner in the present case, such a requirement cannot be fastened upon the Assessing Authority. He submitted that the act of approval is an administrative in nature and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint Commissioner also even for approving Draft Assessment Order. It is not a case where the Assessee did not have any opportunity of hearing before any of the Authorities to defend his case and some assessment of tax has been made against him fastening the liability of tax against the Assessee. The Assessing Authority as well as the two Appellate Authorities who have concurrent powers of assessment as are available with the Assessing Authority, have admittedly heard the Assessee on the merits of the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law in this regard can be said to be arising on the basis of the office guidelines which are for internal purposes of the Department. They are not even statutory instruction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not based merely on statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the assessee in the statement had estimated the undisclosed income of Rs. 75 lakhs for 3 assessment years under consideration which matches the figures and amounts shown in the seized document relating to Pooja income of Rs. 35 lakhs, Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively. We find that there is no ambiguity in the statement of assessee regarding the Pooja income which has been clearly corroborated by the seized material. Thus when there is a sufficient evidence seized material which corroborates the statement of the assessee recorded under Section....