TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,23,78,058/- in the block assessment proceedings on account of transactions in question? Whether the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to law as it has no adjudicated and decided the grounds of appeal placed by the Revenue and on this ground the entire order should be set aside? 3. The Court ultimately and while disposing of the appeals, rendered the following findings on the various contentions which were addressed: "14. Initiation of block assessment proceedings under Section 158BC depends upon the facts at the initial stage and not upon the final outcome pursuant to appellate order or even the assessment order. At the beginning or initiation stage, the final outcome was not known and not relevant. In view of what has been stated above, we have to hold that the findings recorded by the tribunal on the first aspect is entirely unjustified, devoid of merits besides being cryptic as it does not refer to the findings and facts found and held by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals). The findings recorded by the tribunal are incorrect and legally unacceptable as the tribunal has no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly upon statement of witnesses who have not been subjected to cross-examination, if any of the following conditions are satisfied: "(a) when the person who had given the statement is dead; (b) when he cannot be found; (c) when he is incapable of giving evidence; (d) when he is kept out of the way by the adverse party; and (e) when his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense, which the Officer considers unreasonable." xxxx xxxx xxxx 20. The Assessing Officer has referred to several statements of Chander Prakash Sachdeva recorded on different dates. Copies of these statements were made available to the respondent for his comments. Chander Prakash Sachdeva was also summoned for cross-examination by the respondent-assessee. However, Chander Prakash Sachdeva refused cross-examination on the ground that he feared for his life. The said fact is specifically mentioned in the assessment order, though at another place it is also mentioned that for reasons best known to him, Chander Prakash Sachdeva refused cross-examination. The fact that Chander Prakash Sachdeva had feared for his life, stands recorded in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that purchases were made in cash from third parties and, therefore, the Assessing Officer should examine the applicability of Section 40A of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the goods were rejected and returned by the Hong Kong party and this had made Chander Prakash Sachdewa unhappy and he backed out. The said finding has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) but without recording on what basis. Tribunal has not given any finding on the said aspect and their order is silent. Submission by the respondent before the Assessing Officer was that three bills totaling to Rs. 95,37,920/- were returned and not paid as the material supplied was rejected and returned. The assessment order does not refer to re-import, and rejection of material by the Hong Kong party after export. At this stage, we may notice that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 was overruled by the Supreme Court with an order of remand in the decision reported as Income Tax Officer vs. M. Pirari Chrodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC) with a direction that the High court was not correct in taking the view and an order of remand was passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consider afresh all the issues and contentions that arose before it. That the ITAT simply failed to do. It has chosen to adopt a shortcut by verbatim reproducing the portions of the order of the assessment order or the order of this Court whether for the purposes of setting out the facts or even the reasoning and conclusion. It is one thing the ITAT to quote from an order of the AO or the CIT (A) and then explain whether the ITAT agreed with or differed from the said portion. It is another to simply incorporate into the order those very words and passages without any attribution to the source leaving the reader wondering if that could be the actual reasoning of the ITAT. The present impugned order of the ITAT falls in the latter category. 12. Looking at it from any point of view, the Court is unable to accept the impugned order of the ITAT as having satisfied the mandate of this Court, as spelt out in para 24 of its earlier order extracted hereinbefore. 13. Consequently, the question framed is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The Court hereby sets aside the impugned order dated 28th October 2016 passed by the ITAT and restores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng channel were bogus. May be assessee did not file return for A.Y. 1994-1995, but assessee proved that genuine export sales have been made by him. There was no other income detected by Department. Assessee, therefore, explained Section 69A is not applicable in this case. In view of the above, we are of the view that Section 69A of the I.T. Act is not attracted in the case of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, correctly accepted the explanation of assessee. We, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the assessee and hold that there was no justification for the A.O. to make addition of Rs. 5,23, 78,058/- against the assessee. There is no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting this addition. Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue." 8. It becomes apparent from a reading of the aforesaid conclusions recorded that the Tribunal has ultimately on facts come to the conclusion that the factum of exports could not be doubted and that the export proceeds stood duly reflected in the books of account. It has categorically observed that there was no justification for additions being made under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, burden is upon A.O. to prove that assessee has earned undisclosed income through evidence and material recovered during the course of search. But, nothing has been brought on record if assessee earned any undisclosed income. The entire story is built-up on the statement of Shri Chander Prakash Sachdeva which cannot be read in evidence against the assessee as noted above. Only purchase bills issued by Shri Chander Prakash Sachdeva were found in search. On such bills, statement of Shri Chander Prakash Sachdeva was recorded post-search and at assessment stage. There is no other evidence available against assessee. Therefore, in view of the material available on record and in view of the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that purchases have been made by the assessee for effecting exports and in view of the fact that there is no other evidence except the statement of Shri Chander Prakash Sachdeva which was not subjected to cross examination, purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from his two concerns cannot be disbelieved particularly when payments for purchases have been made through banking channel. Merely because amounts have been withdrawn in cash from the Bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tness of the conclusions ultimately arrived at and noticed hereinabove, in our considered opinion, the aspects pertaining to import lose all significance bearing in mind the findings returned by the Tribunal in the aforenoted paragraph 12.1 of its judgement. 11. Insofar as benefits under Section 80HHC are concerned, the Tribunal has on a consideration of the entire material on record ultimately come to conclude as follows: "14. This issue relates to deduction under section 80HHC of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded in his findings that Auditor's Certificate was filed in the name of the company. M/s Iram Group International P. Ltd., was incorporated on 28.02.1995 which succeeded the proprietorship concern of the assessee whose object was to takeover export business of proprietorship concern. The Ld. CIT(A) further recorded in his findings that export was made by proprietorship concern and profit in respect of such exports was liable to be assessed in the hands of the proprietorship concern of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further recorded that it was a case of succession and Books of Account and Audit report of the proprietorship concern continued from the concern and ....