TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 18,23,883/- based on seized documents. 3. A search u/s.132(1) was conducted in the cases of one Shri Sanjay R.Shah Meghmani Group on 22/09/2005. Thereafter, an assessment on this assessee was made u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 30/09/2008. It was noted by the Assessing Officer that a diary marked as Annexure A-5 was found during the course of search from the business premises of M/s.Meghmani Dyes Intermediates Ltd. Panchvati, Ahmedabad. This diary was found to be belonged to the assessee, namely, Shri Alkesh M.Patel. It was found that the assessee was working as Manager (Import Export) of M/s.Meghmani Dyes intermediates Ltd. A statement was recorded u/s.132(1) on 28/11/2005 and in a reply the assessee has confirmed that the said diary belonged to him. The Assessing Officer has also noted that on the said diary, the name and phone numbers of the assessee were noted. Since the said diary belonged to the assessee, therefore the Revenue Department had initiated proceedings against the assessee u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A of the I.T.Act. A notice u/s.153C r.w.s.153A of the I.T.Act was served on 05/04/2006. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TOTAL 246,000 6.1. Due to this reason that an amount of ₹ 1,50,300/- had already been offered as remuneration from the said concern, therefore the amount of ₹ 1,02,000/- which was not alleged to have been mentioned in the seized document, therefore no separate addition was warranted being the impugned amount of ₹ 1,02,000/- had already been offered by the assessee. Resultantly, the view taken by the Learned CIT(Appeals) is hereby confirmed. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 7. Apropos to Ground No.2, it was noted by the Assessing Officer that consequent upon a search u/s.132 of the I.T.Act at the residence of Shri Lalit K.Patel a pen-drive was seized by the Revenue Department which contained certain notings regarding of the salary to employees. In the said pen-drive, cash amount has also been mentioned and in the statement recorded u/s.131(1A) of the I.T.Act dated 21/11/2005, Mr.Patel has stated that the cash mentioned represented the expenditure to be incurred by those respective persons. The Assessing Officer has noted that the name of Shri Alkesh Patel appeared in the seized doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as details produced before the Assessing Officer by virtue of the provisions of section 245HA of the I.T.Act. He has also noted that the assessee had been provided the reasons recorded on 18.09.2008 while initiating the proceedings u/s.153C of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer has also noted that the relevant documents were shown to the assessee and also provided the copies of the documents to the assessee. According to Assessing Officer, the pendrive and the ZIP drive contained various work books having datas of salary and bonus as well as cash paid to certain individuals including this assessee. The said fact was admitted in the statement of Shri Lalit K.Patel. The Assessing Officer has also noted as follows:- 4. Page no 93 of A-4 found and seized from the residential premise of Shri Lalit K Patel In addition to above on page no 93 of A-4 found and seized from the residential premise of Shri Lalit K Patel (Enclosed as Annexure 2) pencil written statement of certain receipt and payments for the period 01.10.04 to 31.03.05 are recorded. On the said page there is a noting Mafatlal Industries LKP Shriji Fertiliser Naroda Sahiba Dyechem Udaipur Shakuntal Enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the various group concerns is ₹ 5.90 Crores. As Tapasheel Enterprise was preparing to file a Settlement Petition before Hon ble Settlement Commission, a lump sum amount of ₹ 1.00 crore was shown as additional income in the return of income of Tapasheel Enterprise for the A.Y. 2005-06. Further, the amount of ₹ 4.90 Crores was bifurcated among the remaining group concerns on the basis of their turnover for the financial year 2004-05. Accordingly, the amount of ₹ 2.75 crore was shown as additional income in the hands of the assessee company for the year under consideration. 7.4. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced and he has concluded that the impugned amount of ₹ 18,23,883/- was nothing but represented unaccounted remuneration received by this appellant. In the result, the said amount was taxed as unaccounted remuneration in the hands of the assessee. 8. Before the Learned CIT(Appeals), it was reiterated that the impugned amount did not represent the remuneration but it was given to the assessee against various expenses to be incurred in respect of few connected concerns. After appreciating the facts of the case, the Learned CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 10. Grounds are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not upholding the assessee s contention that it was not at all a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act. 2. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross-objection either before or during the course of hearing of the same. 10.1. In respect of this ground as raised by the cross-objector, at the outset, it is worth to mention that the legal issue in respect of applicability of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T.Act has only academic interest because on facts our verdict had already gone in favour of the assessee and the impugned additions have already been deleted. As far as the legal side of this issue is concerned, the ld.ARs Mr.S.N.Soparkar and Mr.P.M.Mehta have argued that the provisions of section 153C can only be attracted if any money, bullion, jewellery, or books of account or documents, etc. found belonging to a person other than the person searched. According to him, no such document or an asset was found which could be said to be belonging to this assessee, therefore t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoking the provisions of section 153C of the I.T.Act. Now the question is that whether all those documents and information were sufficient to invoke the provisions of section 153C against this assessee. In this regard, we have carefully perused all the case laws as cited by ld.AR. In all these case laws,it has been consistently held that the condition precedent for issuing notice u/s.153C is that valuable articles or documents,etc.which were seized or requisitioned should belong to such person other than the person searched. The Hon'ble Courts have examined the facts of all those cases and then given a finding that admittedly the documents in question did not belong to the assessee. On the basis of the said admitted factual position that those documents in question did not belong to the assessee, it was held that the condition precedent for issuance of notice was not fulfilled. As against that, in the present appeals, the undisputed fact was that the said diary did belong to the assessee and that the said amount was in fact given to the assessee. According to us, since the diary and the amount was intricately linked with the assessee, then those facts were sufficient enough t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below and are hereby decided as follows: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 84,000/- made on account of undisclosed income based on seized documents. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 13,68,000/- based on seized documents. 15.1. In this case, assessment was made u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 30/09/2008 on total income of ₹ 23,71,694 against the additional income offered of ₹ 8,39,000/- 15.2. We have been informed that facts in respect of both these grounds were identical with the facts as discussed hereinabove in the appeal of Shri Alkesh M.Patel(supra). We have already taken a view and thereupon affirmed the findings of the Learned CIT(Appeals). In identical manner, we hereby dismiss these grounds of the Revenue. Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection No.105/Ahd/2010 filed by the Assessee (Shri Praful Ganpatbhai Patel) 16. The issue of invocation of jurisdiction u/s.153C of the I.T.Act has already been decided in favour of the Revenue, hence the cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 17. As a result, all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
