Sunil Bhaseen vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—The assessee has preferred this appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ''the Act'') against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in ITA No. 371 (Asr.)/2006 for the assessment year 2000-01, served upon the appellant as on 2-2-2008, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:

Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that the Assessing Officer in light of judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshajts (India) Ltd v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 was under a ''statutory obligation'' to dispose of the ''Objections'' filed by the assessee challenging the initiation of the reassessment proceedings, by way of a ''separate'' and an ''independent'' order, before proceeding with and framing assessment in the hands of the assessee?

Whether the Tribunal had gravely erred in law and acted in gross violation of the ''Principles of Natural justice'' by relying on the statement of one Sh. Rakesh Bajaj which was recorded at the back of the assessee, and therein drawing adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee without allowing ''cross examination'' of the said person, despite specific requests of the assessee for the same?

The assessee received gift of Rs. 5 lakhs from one Suresh Bajaj. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on receiving information that in fact, the gift relied upon by the assessee represented his income. The assessment was made accordingly. The said view was affirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal, inter alia, observed as under:

....However, the question is whether in the absence of such statement of Shri Rakesh Bajaj, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer could be held to be justified. In this case the assessee has miserably failed to prove the occasion of such gift and that the assessee had close relations with the donor. Thus, even if we ignore the statement of Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, the evidence furnished by the assessee does not establish the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. The results of enquiries were duly confronted to the assessee. But the assessee made no efforts to rebut the evidence collected by way of filing a fresh evidence from Sh. Suresh Bajaj and to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Shri Suresh Bajaj was also not produced before the Assessing Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer has adversely commented upon the evidence furnished by the assessee. Though the assessee has filed a paper book, yet the copies of certificate of the Notary and an affidavit are conveniently omitted from the paper book filed before the Tribunal. Thus, independent of the statement of Shri Rakesh Bajaj, the addition is justified and warranted.

We have heard learned Counsel for the assessee and perused the record.

Only contention raised by learned Counsel for the assessee is that Rakesh Bajaj, whose statement was taken into account for reopening the assessment was not allowed to be cross-examined. Learned Counsel for the assessee also submits that in view of judgment of, Hon''ble Supreme Court in GKNDriveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 : [2002] 125 Taxman 963, the department was under obligation to dispose of objections of the assessee to the initiation of proceedings, by way of separate and independent order.

We are unable to accept that there is any rigid rule that even if there is adequate material justifying reassessment and no prejudice is caused to the assessee, the same should be set aside on a technicality. The Tribunal held that transaction of gift was not genuine and the assessee failed to produce Suresh Bajaj. On probabilities, the transaction of gift was held not to be genuine.

The findings of the authorities are not shown, in any manner, to be perverse.

In view of above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.