TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment by the petitioners definitely thus belong to the petitioners. It may be that as an evidence of passing on vacant and peaceful possession of the property, the petitioners handed over such documents to the purchasers to protect the interest of the purchasers against any action that may be initiated by the erstwhile tenants. The nature of the document or the fact that it belongs to the petitioners would not in any manner change. Likewise, the documents of sale also can be stated to belong to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were the sellers of the lands. The receipts of payments also are documents belonging to the petitioners. They are alleged to have received various payments in cash from the purchasers. If there are documents evidencing such particulars and if such documents are also signed by the petitioners, it can certainly be stated that such documents do belong to the petitioners. Thus the action initiated under Section 153C of the Act cannot be quashed on the ground on which writ petitions are presented before us - Decided in favour of revenue. - Special Civil Application Nos.13635, 13636 & 13643 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 24-12-2012 - AKIL KUR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly verified and signed in accordance with the provisions of section 140 of the said Act and delivered at any office as mentioned above within fifteen days from the service of the notice. 5. The respondents along with the reply have produced reasons for issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Act, which were recorded on 24th September 2011 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which reads as under : A search U/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act was conducted in Group cases of Sanghvi Group (Shri Dhirajlal Vaghjibhai Sanghvi and others), on 09.03.2011. Search was also carried out at residential premises of Shir Dhirajlal Vaghjibhai Sanghvi At A-14, Tirthbhumi Appartments, Opp. Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. During the course of search one loose paper file consisting of 102 pages was found which was seized and inventorized as per annexure A-1. The documents seized are as under :- (a) Pages 65 to 92 are sale deed of land (Survey No. 3) of Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad which was sold by Shri Kamlesh Dharmsibhai Patel Others. (b) Pages 46 to 64 are sale deed of land (Survey No. 13) of Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad which was sold by Shri Sanjay D. Patel Kamlesh D. Patel. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly contended that none of the documents found from the persons searched could be stated to belong to the petitioners. He submitted that under Section 153C of the Act action can be taken only if any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong to a person other than the person searched. He submitted that when the lands in question were already sold in favour of Sanghvi Infracon Pvt. Ltd. under the sale dated 18th September 2010, these documents in question cannot be stated to belong to the petitioners. As per his contention, once the title in the land vested in the purchases, none of the documents could be stated to belong to the petitioners. 9. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of Devision Bench of this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 436 wherein the Court had an occasioned to interpret the term belongs to used in Section 153C of the Act. We will refer to the said decision at a later stage. 10. For our perusal, Counsel produced on record photo copies of some of the documents which were entered into between the petitioners and the tenants. 11. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir challenge to the order passed under Section 127(2) of the Act, she has no further submissions to make. 14. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents on record, a pointed question that arises for our consideration is whether the action of the respondents under Section 153C of the Act can be stated to be invalid in the facts of the case. To recapitulate the facts - the petitioners held certain parcels of land in the city of Ahmedabad. Such lands were sold to Sanghvi Infracon Pvt. Limited by executing Sale Deeds dated 18th September 2010. Subsequently, Sanghvi Group was subjected to search and seizure operations during which time, certain documents were seized. It is the case of the Revenue that huge cash amounts were paid for purchase of the land which were received by the petitioners. We are not concerned with these allegations at this stage. What is relevant for us is to determine whether the sale-documents executed in favour of the petitioners and the agreements executed by the tenants of the lands in favour of the petitioners and other documents relied upon by revenue are the documents belonging to the petitioners and that therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or assets seized or requisitioned. Importantly therefore, to initiate any action under Section 153C of the Act, it is essential that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to a person other than the person referred to in Section 153A of the Act. 17. It was in this background that the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vijaybhai N. Chandrani [Supra] quashed the action of the Revenue authorities when it was found that copies of loose sheets of papers which were found during the search cannot be stated to belong to the person other than the searched person. It was the case wherein, on the basis of such documents seized during search operations on a builder, action under Section 153C of the Act was initiated against the purchasers of the properties constructed by the searched person. It was on this point that the Court held and observed as under :- 13. Thus a condition precedent for issuing notice under section 153C and assessing or reassessing income of such other person, is that the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The party of the second part required the land with vacant possession. The party of the first part did not require tenanted property any longer. The party of the second part therefore paid a total consideration of ₹ 24,00,000/= calculating ₹ 8,00,000/= per room to the party of the first part, upon which he had handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the said tenanted property to the party of the second part. In paragraph 5 of the said agreement, it was specifically provided that the party of the first part had not entered into any other transaction with respect to the tenanted properties. In paragraph 6 thereof, it was stated that the party of the first part would present himself for executing any document in favour of the party of the second part before any authorities; whenever required. 19. From the above, it emerges that the portion of land in question were occupied by tenants. In order to not only give a clear marketable title to the purchaser but also give the vacant possession of the entire land, the petitioners before executing the Sale Deeds entered into agreements with the tenants under which, the tenants vacated the premises and handed over posses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he document or the fact that it belongs to the petitioners would not in any manner change. 22. Likewise, the documents of sale also can be stated to belong to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were the sellers of the lands. They do not either doubt or dispute the documents of sale, or their respective signatures thereon. Term belong is not defined and does not have legally technical connotation and therefore, we once again fall back on the dictionary meaning of the same. We need to ascertain if such document can be stated to have relation or reference to to the petitioners. As noted, the petitioners were as sellers of the land, parties to the documents. They had admittedly executed such sale deeds. It cannot be stated that the sale deeds do not belong to them. Likewise, the receipts of payments also are documents belonging to the petitioners. They are alleged to have received various payments in cash from the purchasers. If there are documents evidencing such particulars and if such documents are also signed by the petitioners, it can certainly be stated that such documents do belong to the petitioners. 23. Under the circumstances, we are of the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
