- (1.) The above appeal was preferred by the Appellant against the judgment and order dt. 10th Feb., 2006 passed by the Tribunal 'D' Bench, Calcutta in IT(SS)A No. 185/Kol/2004 in the block asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02 insofar as the same relates to reconsideration of taxability or otherwise of the sum of Rs. 2,54,32,93,100 received by the Appellant on 1st March, 2006. Thus it appears that the appeal is preferred against portion of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal by which five several appeals were disposed of. One of the appeals being IT(SS)A No. 161/Kol/2004 was preferred against the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of IT Act, 1961, dt. 27th Nov., 2006. Above appeal was admitted on the following formulated question of law: Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the twin conditions for exercise of the power under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the block assessment order dt. 29th Nov., 2002 were satisfied and its purported findings upholding the order of the CIT cancelling the same in reconsideration of taxability or otherwise of the sum of Rs. 2,54,32,93,100 are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ?
(2.) The short facts relevant for this appeal, are as follows: The block assessment of the Assessee was completed under Section 158BC r/w Section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on 29th Nov., 2002 for the period 1995-96 to 2001-02. Thereafter the CIT on perusal of the assessment record found that the AO while completing assessment had not taken into consideration the Assessee's transaction recorded in a small diary which is one of the seized documents bearing identification mark KP-19. In the said document the Assessee is said to have recorded cash paid and received a sum of Rs. 2,54,32,93,100 relating to asst. yrs. 1995-96 to 2001-02. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 6th Sept., 2004 asking the Assessee to explain receipt of the said amount and also gave chance of personal hearing. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee duly appeared and made submission. The sum and substance of the Assessee's case before the CIT was that AO had looked into and examined all the books of accounts and documents seized during search period and therefore, there was no occasion to ignore any taxable income. The CIT did not accept such explanation and having invoked his power under Section 263 cancelled the assessment and directed the AO to make fresh assessment after examining the cash transaction recorded in seized document KP-19. The learned Tribunal having considered the submissions of both the parties upheld the action of CIT under Section 263 so far as the same relates to the total amount of Rs. 2,54,32,93,100. The learned Tribunal did not approve of cancellation of the entire order of assessment.
(3.) Thereafter the AO made fresh assessment and necessary order was passed in terms of the direction of the learned Tribunal. In the context of the aforesaid factual position the present appeal is being heard by the Court.;