9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11and Central Circle-06 respectively under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') calling upon the Petitioners to furnish returns of income in respect of Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09 being one of the six AYs preceding the assessment years relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. 2. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department ('Department') on 29th October 2013 at the premises of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jolly (the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8721/2014) a Director of TJG Holding Pvt. Ltd. ('TJG') (the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5050/2015). From the enquiries made during the course of the search, it transpired that the Department was examining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 153A (1) of the Act. The main ground urged by the Petitioners to challenge the impugned notices is that this was a typical case of a mistaken belief that the shares of LIPL had been sold for only Rs. 9 crores and thereby a loss of Rs. 36 crores was incurred. Consequently it was urged that the very initiation of the search proceedings against Mr Jolly was illegal. 5. As far as TJG was concerned, it was pointed out that only a survey was conducted under Section 133 of the Act. As there was no search of the premises of TJG, no notice to it under Section 153 A (1) of the Act could have been issued. 6. In the present petitions, notice was issued on 9th December 2014 and 20th May 2015 respectively. Stay was granted of further proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r above and not at Rs. 10 per share as was previously assumed. In the report, the advice given to the AO is to examine the sale of shares of LIPL in detail in view of the above findings. Mr. Chaudhary, accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the AO by the Court to proceed on the basis of the above investigation report. 9. However, the Court sees no purpose being served in making the Petitioners go through the process of assessment proceedings when plainly the very basis for undertaking the search has been shown to be non-existent. In fact, the reply of Mr Jolly to the ACIT stands vindicated by the investigation of the Department. As far as TGJ s concerned, there is no denial of the fact that no search took place in its pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
