TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment years 1991-92 to 2001-02. 2. Revenue has also filed another appeal in ITA No.471/2017 challenging the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1991-92 to 2001-02 in the very same assessee's case. 3. This appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition made by assessing authority with regard to unexplained investments by erroneous holding that there is no evidence brought on record by assessing authority and no opportunity was granted to assessee to cross examine the witnesses without appreciating the contents of sized proved the unexplained investments made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls?" 5. This is the second round of litigation inasmuch as the issues involved herein are concerned. The assessee is a company and carrying on business of real estate. Pursuant to the search action conducted on 24.01.2001 in the premises of the assessee as well as at the residents of the Directors of the company, some incriminating materials were seized from the premises of the assessee. After conclusion of search operation, proceedings were initiated under Section 158BC of the Act and called upon the assessee to file its undisclosed income. The block assessment proceedings were concluded by the order passed under Section 158BC read with Section 143[3] of the Act on 13.01.2003. In the said proceedings, the Assessing Officer added certain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which came to be allowed in part against which the assessee preferred appeal inasmuch as restricting the addition to Rs. 2,00,000/- as regards unexplained income from Jansons Mall whereas the Revenue preferred appeal with respect to the relief given to the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Being aggrieved, this appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the findings of the Tribunal with respect to unexplained investments in Janson mall. Re. Substantial question of law. 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue referring to Section 69C of the Act, submitted that the burden was on the assessee to prove that Mr.J.Dass has received only Rs. 2,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cally admitted that he has received only Rs. 2,00,000/- and not Rs. 20,00,000/- as alleged by the Department. It was submitted that Section 69C would be applicable if the expenditure of Rs. 20,00,000/- incurred is confirmed. There being no such confirmation, arguments of the Revenue deserves to be negated. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. It is not in dispute that in the first round prior to remand made by the Tribunal, the assessing officer has recorded the statements of Mr.J.Das. He [Mr.J.Das] had categorically stated that he has received only Rs. 2,00,000/- from the assessee. This has been reiterated by the Commissioner of Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....direction of the Hon'ble ITAT is clear on unambiguity that the assessment record of Mr.J.Das to be verified. However, as per assessment order dated 31.12.2008 reveals that the Assessing Officer was asked to furnish details of Mr.J.Das, but the appellant expressed its inability to furnish any details regarding Mr.J.Das as he was no more. The Assessing Officer has not made any further enquiring at least she would have verified the assessment record of M/s. Reliable Press [Mr.J.Das] which is available in the department if Mr.J.Das used to file his return of income. Despite of the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT no verification has been made by the Assessing Officer before passing reassessment order. These facts also raised in the written submiss....