Case Law Details
PCIT (Exemption) Vs Bishandayal Jewellers (Orissa High Court)
Before the CIT(A), the Assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not given copies of the seized materials extracted from the hard disk and the pen drive. The CIT( A) called for a remand report from the AO. By the time, the remand report could be submitted, the AO changed. The AO had tried to open the hard disk in a standard computer, but he was unable to do so. In the remand report, while stating this fact, the AO provided a soft copy of the hard disk and pen-drive to the CIT (A). The ITAT has noted in the impugned order that the AO has simply reproduced the appraisal report and has not undertaken any analysis of the seized materials. Even the hard disk with the working copy was not seen by the AO. The seized material had neither been opened nor examined. The expert report also failed to point out that the software was “hardware specific”.
In the impugned order the ITAT has concluded that the CIT(A) was right in holding that the additions made in the all three AYs was “in total violation of the principles of natural justice” and that the additions have been made clearly on estimate basis.
With there being concurrent findings on fact by the both the CIT(A) and ITAT and there being clear violations of the legal requirements by the AO, this Court is unable to find any error committed by the CIT (A) or the ITAT in disagreeing with the AO and setting aside the assessment order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
