COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PC CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is aggrieved in these appeals by orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal?, for short) and they are disposed of by this common judgment since the subject matter of these appeals is common. The question of law sought to be urged is whether the Tribunal fell into error in not remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for providing opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant and material documents instead of deleting the addition.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that pursuant to the search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act?, for short) on 15.12.2004 in the premises of one Brij Mohan Gupta, certain documents and the materials were found and seized. On the basis of the statements of his son and accountant, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the assessees herein. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer placed reliance upon the statement of Brij Mohan Gupta and certain other materials which according to him were relevant and pertain to the assessee. On that basis the Assessing Officer framed the assessments. The assessees claimed to be aggrieved and carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who by his order set-aside the assessments even while upholding the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Revenue as well as the assessees went into cross appeals to the Tribunal. The Revenue?s appeal was rejected by the Tribunal which affirmed the observations of CIT (Appeals) with regard to denial of opportunity. As far as the assessee?s appeal was concerned, it was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal held as follows: -

(3.) The Revenue relies upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported as ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi,2011 334 ITR 262. In this case the Court had disapproved the approach of the concerned High Court which set-aside an order of reassessment on the ground of the assessee not having been given opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are as follows: -