|Question And Answer|
|Subject:||Reassessment and search action u/Sec. 132|
|Answered by:||Advocate Shashi Ashok Bekal|
|Date:||March 30, 2023|
Assesseee co is developer and Builder. Search action U/sec. 132 has been conducted in the year 2022-23. During the course of search one pen drive was found with one of the employee, which contains the noting of cash transcation.
On the basis of such noting and statement of few employees and one of the director, where in they have accepted the noting are in respect of cash transcations carried out by assesseee and group co.
On the basis of such admission Mr. A received Notice from AO , asking the Mr.A as to why amount mentioned on the seized pen drive should not be treated as income escaped from assessemt and liable to be tax for A.Y. 2016- 17 with in 7 days as the said information is flagged as VRU module as RMS guidd lines. It is also stated that this letter be consider as Notice U/Sec. 148A(b) of the Act.
Whether such action of AO of Mr. A is legally justified .
What are options available with Mr. A.
CONSULTNAT OF Mr. A ADVICED HIM TO DENY THE SAID TRASCATIONS AND ASKED FOR COPY OF ENTIRE STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS AND OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION .
WHETHER THIS ACTION IS CORREFT
This answer is prepared on the basis of the limited facts provided in the query. Firstly, if incriminating evidence is found in the course of a search conducted after April 01, 2021, the Notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act is bad in law, as the Officer should directly issue a notice under section 148 of the Act with the prior approval of the competent authority.
The advice of the consultant is correct. If any statement is being used against you. You must ask for a copy of the same and an opportunity to cross-examine. If the same is not complied with by the Department, it would amount to a violation of the principles of Natural Justice.