TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding the action of the assessing officer in reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the facts and circumstances of the case? b) Whether Tribunal erred in law in not holding that there was no reason to believe that income escaped assessment and all mandatory conditions to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Act were not satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case? c) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in reversing the deletion made by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] of the addition under Section 69B in respect of alleged unexplained investments made in properties of Rs. 28,75,500/- for the assessment year 2007-08 on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber 24, 2010, the Assessing Officer passed Assessment orders for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. Assessee challenged it before the CIT (A) (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI). By common order dated March 16, 2012, CIT (A) partly allowed the appeals. The assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals against the said order before the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Bengaluru). Against the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the assessee preferred cross objections. By its judgment dated August 14, 2014, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and cross objections filed by the assessee. The appeal preferred by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 was partly allowed and dismissed the appeals for other assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the seized diary. He argued that even though Mr.Chowta is not taxed, in view of assessee's admission, the order passed by the Assessing Officer does not call for any interference. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. In Manish Maheshwari, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows: "10. Law in this regard is clear and explicit. The only question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the notice dated 6-2-1996 satisfies the requirements of Section 158-BD of the Act. The said notice does not record any satisfaction on the part of the assessing officer. Documents and other assets recovered during search had not been handed over to the assessing officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgued on behalf of the Revenue that Shri. Ashok Kumar Chowta had offered tax on lump-sum income. 11. Further, the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction with regard to escapement of income. On the other hand, he has based Revenue's case entirely on the statement of assessee. Assessee has placed reliance on Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.Ltd.Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SCC) PARA 4 and rightly urged that assessee's admission cannot be a conclusive evidence. Therefore, these two questions merit consideration and require to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Re. Question No.(c): 12. The issue in this question is addition of Rs.28,75,500/- by the Assessing Officer under Section 69....