Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.J. VAZIFDAR AND DEEPAK SIBAL, JJ.
Surjeet Bahadur Khurania - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal - Respondent
ITA No.346 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided on : 22-09-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate
Errors in the notice under Section 158BC did not render the notice or the block assessment proceedings void, as they did not cause any prejudice to the assessee. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice and the time limit for compliance, citing relevant legal provisions and case law.
Headnote:
Income Tax - Block Assessment - Section 158BC(c), 158(BB)(b), 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - The court addressed the legal objections raised by the appellant regarding the block assessment proceedings and the validity of the notice issued under Section 158BC. The court held that errors such as those in the notice did not render the notice or the block assessment proceedings void, as they did not cause any prejudice to the assessee. The court also discussed the mandatory nature of the notice under Section 158BC and the time limit for compliance, and cited relevant legal provisions and case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in relation to the block period from 01.04.1987 to 06.06.1997. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the non-consideration of legal objections, concurring with the findings of CIT (A), and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that errors in the notice did not render the block assessment proceedings void, as they did not cause any prejudice to the assessee. The court also dismissed the appellant's contentions regarding the additions made by the Authorities, stating that they did not raise substantial questions of law.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included the validity of the notice issued under Section 158BC, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to form a block assessment order, and the legality of the additions made by the Authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that errors in the notice did not render the notice or the block assessment proceedings void, as they did not cause any prejudice to the assessee. The court also emphasized that the mandatory nature of the notice under Section 158BC and the time limit for compliance were not grounds for vitiating the block assessment proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding in favor of the revenue-respondent and against the appellant on the questions raised regarding the validity of the notice, the additions made by the Authorities, and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala (for short-'CIT Appeals'). The CIT (Appeals), in turn, had substantially confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The appeal is in respect of the block period from 01.04.1987 to 06.06.1997.
The matter arises on account of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BC(c) read with Sections 158(BB) (b) and Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act').
2. The appellant/assessee contends that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:-
“i) That the ITAT is not justified in non-consideration of legal objections and not deciding the Grounds of Appeal legally taken by the appellant though reproduced in its order under Statutory appeal indicate non-application of mind by the ITAT while deciding the appeal and thus deserve indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in setting aside the orders of ITAT and the Authorities below.
(ii) That the ITAT is not justified in concurring with the findings of CIT (A) without considering the arguments, explanations and judicial decisions and also without passing any speaking order on the legal issue of reference to special auditors u/s 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too having so done without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant being a basic and legal requirement of such reference.
(iii) That the ITAT is not justified in concurring with the findings of CIT(A) without considering the arguments, explanations and judicial decisions and also without passing any speaking order on the legal issue pertaining to “Dumb Document” giving no indication to prove having any connection any enquiry qua the said document and also not appreciating the legal principle that though any document found at the place of the assessee is presumed to be belonging to him but this presumption is rebuttable and having duly rebutted by the appellant the resultant addition of Rs.32,72,595/- in the hands of appellant is bad in law.
(iv) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, 60,000/- and Rs.70,000/- in the A.Y. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993- 94 respectively on the basis of estimation of undisclosed income from the alleged sale and purchase of land on the basis of the alleged dumb document as so referred in item No.(H) (spura) which does not belong to the appellant at all nor any material/evidence has been brought on record by the AO to prove any nexus wherein the appellant relies upon the basis as adopted in item H (supra).
(v) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.40,000/-, in the A.Y. 1998-99, on the basis of estimation of undisclosed income from the alleged profit on sale of EO Plot and that of Bajaj Plot on the basis of the alleged dumb document copy at Annexure A-8 as so referred in item No.(H)(supra) which does not belong to the appellant at all nor any material/evidence has been brought on record by the AO to prove any nexus wherein the appellant relies upon the basis as adopted in item H (supra).
(vi) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of alleged loans given, in the A.Y. 1998-99, and Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of loans raised as undisclosed income on the basis of the alleged dumb document copy at Annexure A-9 as so referred in item No.(H)(supra) which does not belong to the appellant at all nor any material/evidence has been brought on record by the AO to prove any nexus wherein the appellant relies upon the basis as adopted in item H (supra).
(vii) That the ITAT has erred in concurring with the findings of the CIT (A) in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on account of alleged loans on 06.05.199
