Dy. CIT v. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) through legal heirs (2024) 340 CTR 536 / 241 DTR 385 / 164 Taxmann.com 575 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Directions of higher authorities-Evident from record that Assessing Officer had passed order for reassessment under influence of his superiors-Reassessment is rightly quashed by the Tribunal. [S. 68, 132(9A),132A, 148 260A]

Assessee was a director of a company. Search and seizure operations were carried out by CBI at residential premises of one JKJ, who was an employee of said company. During such search operation, certain documents were found apart from Indian currency of certain amount and foreign currency. Photocopies of seized documents were handed over by CBI to Income Tax Department for enquiries and investigation. Subsequently, remaining seized documents were handed over by CBI to DIT (Inv.) which was in response to warrant of authorisation issued by DIT (Inv.) under section 132A. On basis of such documents, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 to assessee-Accordingly, reassessment order was passed making addition under section 68  of the Act. On appeal the CIT(A) up held the order of the AO. On appeal; the Tribunal held that reassessments were completed on the directions/ dictates of the higher authorities, which is not permissible in law. On appeal by the Revenue the Court held that,  the  Assessing Officer was taking instructions on each and every hearing and dictates was clearly given to him. Even questionnaire was prepared on instruction of his superiors and same was even sent to Delhi for confirmation. In a letter addressed by Assessing Officer to DDIT(Inv.), Assessing Officer had clearly written that though he had drafted skeleton of order, but he want guidance of higher authorities. Therefore, it was quite evident that Assessing Officer had passed order for reassessment under influence of his superiors. Therefore, reassessment order was not sustainable, particularly when reassessment started at dictation of higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process continuous instructions were imparted. Order of Tribunal is affirmed.  (AY.1988-89 to 1992-93)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*