Decided on December 08,1994



R.K. Bali, Accountant Member - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 16-3-1989 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar.
(2.) Initially the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee running into 3 pages were directed against the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that addition of Rs. 79,118 made by the AO is not covered by the Amnesty Scheme. Subsequently the assessee filed additional ground of appeal wherein it was prayed that since the assessee has filed revised return under the Amnesty Scheme on 25-3-1986 surrendering the amount of Rs. 80,730 which was more than Rs. 79,118 added by the AO and the assessment under Section 143(3) was completed only on 29-1-1987/2-2-1987, the AO ought not to have charged any interest Under Section 139(8) and Under Section 215, accordingly in the additional grounds it was prayed that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the levy of penal interest Under Section 139(8) and Under Section 215 on the erroneous ground that the revised return filed by the assessee was not covered under the Amnesty Scheme. During the course of hearing the Bench pointed out to the assessee that the grounds of appeal taken were argumentative and accordingly the assessee filed the following revised grounds of appeal : 1. That the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the revised return furnished by the assessee-appellant surrendering the sum of Rs. 80,730 was not covered under the Amnesty Scheme & as such he was not justified in not cancelling the charging of interest Under Sections 139(8) and 215 of the I.T. Act. 2. That even if it were to be presumed that the revised return was not covered under the Amnesty Scheme, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 79,118 made by the IAC(A) by ignoring the revised return as the addition is illegal and unwarranted. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO may not supply copies of documents and statements relied upon by him and by not making the person making the statement available for cross-examination, had flouted all principles of equity & natural justice. The addition of Rs. 79,118 is bad on this score also. 3. Briefly the facts relating to the controversy are that the assessee filed return for the Asst. year 1984-85 declaring an income of Rs. 6,22,930 on 31-10-1984. There was a survey under Section 133A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 7-8-1984 at Taj Hotel, New Delhi where the assessee performed the marriage of his daughter and certain documents relating to marriage expenses of the assessee's daughter were discovered by the Survey Party. Thereafter summons under Section 131 dated 15-11-1984 along with letter dated 14-11-1984 of the Assessing Officer was issued to the assessee to explain the total expenses on marriage of daughter and the source in relation to that and hearing was fixed for 26-11-1984. On 26-11-1984, the assessee filed the details of marriage expenses vide letter dated 26-11-1984 along with photostat copies of Bills for Rs. 18,388 and photostat copies of the receipts of payments made to the hotel by two drafts of Rs. 10,000 each.
(3.) THEREAFTER statement of the assessee was recorded by the Assessing Officer on 15-1-1985 wherein the assessee was confronted with a photocopy of Bill for Rs. 1,26,344 regarding Banquet Challan which was discovered by the Survey Party of Income-tax Department on Hotel Taj Mahal, New Delhi but the assessee denied the payment of knowledge of this Bill and requested for supply of copy of these documents, which according to the assessee, were not supplied to him but he obtained these subsequently from the Court where criminal proceedings for prosecution for attempted evasion of tax under Section 276 as well as for concealment of income were launched by the department on 29-3-1985.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.