TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t discuss the assessee's appeal in the case of Rohitkumar Chinubhai Modi (in ITA No. 1961/Ahd/2025), our observations in the present matter would equally apply to ITA No. 1960/Ahd/2025 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 1961/Ahd/2025 "1. The Ld. CIT(A) grievously erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 23-3-2016 was illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction, hence, required to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and failed to appreciate the fact that AO proceeded to complete the assessment without providing a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. This was mandatory as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd vs ITO 259 ITR 19(SC). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the fact that the assessee's case was subjected to detailed scrutiny twice. Once u/s. 143(3) on 14-9-2011 and u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 on 17-12-2014, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment as provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set, we note that there is a delay of 77 days in filing of the appeal before us. Looking into the totality of facts the quantum of addition made, the smallness of delay in filing of the present appeal and no perceptible prejudice being caused to the Department, we are hereby inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeal before us. On Merits: 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 19.03.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 35,23,540/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.09.2011 determining the total income at Rs. 35,47,690/-. Thereafter, the case was reopened earlier and an assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 was completed on 17.12.2014 determining the total income at Rs. 45,44,450/-Once again, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 on 23.03.2016 after recording reasons and obtaining approval as required under the Act. Since the assessee did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anation furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied on the loose papers impounded during the survey in the case of M/s Bhailal A. Patel, the admission of cash payment by Shri Hitendra Patel, and the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The Assessing Officer held that the impounded documents were not dumb documents, that they directly related to the transaction in question, and that the purchasers had clearly admitted payment of on-money. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs. 3,31,63,138/- being the assessee's share of the alleged cash consideration as unaccounted sale consideration received in cash and added the same to the assessee's income under the head short-term capital gains. The assessment was accordingly completed assessing the total income at Rs. 3,66,86,678/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 9. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the first appellate authority, the assessee challenged both the validity of the reopening under sections 147 and 148 of the Act as well as the addition on merits.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ior to the impugned reassessment. It was argued that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued on 23.03.2016 was bad in law, as the reasons for reopening were not furnished as mandated by law and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. It was further contended that the reopening was initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and, therefore, the proviso to section 147 squarely applied. The learned counsel submitted that the Department was already in possession of the so-called incriminating loose papers since 2008 and yet no action was taken during the original scrutiny or the earlier reassessment proceedings. The reopening after such a long lapse of time, based on the same material, was argued to be nothing but a change of opinion. It was also contended that the sanction under section 151 was mechanical and invalid, as evident from the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, wherein no proper satisfaction was recorded by the competent authority. On merits, the learned counsel vehemently argued that the entire addition was based solely on loose papers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs. The record clearly shows that the assessee was fully aware, right from the stage of reopening, that the proceedings were founded upon the statement and admission of Shri Hitendrakumar Bhailalbhai Patel. Despite such knowledge, the assessee never made any specific request during the course of reassessment proceedings seeking cross-examination of the said purchaser. It is well settled that the right of cross-examination, though an important facet of natural justice, is not an automatic or absolute right and has to be specifically demanded at the appropriate stage. Failure to seek cross-examination at the assessment stage disentitles the assessee from subsequently raising such a grievance. We are of the considered view that where the assessee did not seek cross-examination at the relevant stage, the plea of violation of natural justice cannot be entertained at a later stage. The present case, therefore, does not suffer from any violation of principles of natural justice on this count. 17. Coming to the contention that the loose papers impounded during the survey are dumb documents, we find ourselves unable to agree with the assessee. The impounded documents, when examined in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here exists prima facie material leading to formation of such belief. This legal position is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). Therefore, the reopening of assessment in the present case cannot be said to be invalid or based on a mere change of opinion. 19. As regards the contention that the Department is taking contradictory stands by rejecting the purchaser's claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act in proceedings under section 263 and yet taxing the receipt of cash in the hands of the assessee, we find no substance in this plea. The proceedings under section 263 of the Act in the case of the purchaser were concerned with the allowability of a statutory deduction, which required strict proof of eligibility and compliance with the conditions prescribed under the Act. It is a settled position of law that findings in the case of one assessee do not operate as res judicata in the case of another assessee. Therefore, rejection of the purchaser's claim for deduction does not preclude the Department from examining and taxing the correspo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order. 23. We note that the Counsel for the assessee has relied upon a large number of judicial precedents. However, in our considered view those have been rendered in their particular set of facts and have no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. It is a well-settled law that judicial precedents do not have general applicability and facts of each case have to be analyzed whether the applicability to the assessee. 24. Further, we have passed the present order on the basis of grounds/arguments taken before us during the course of detailed hearing which took place. Other grounds which was not argued before us or for which no specific arguments/submissions were made have not been dealt within the order. 25. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Now we come to ITA No. 1960/Ahd/2025 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 1960/Ahd/2025 "1. The Ld. CIT(A) grievously erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 23-3-2016 was illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction, henc....