TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation authorities nor the Assessing Officer have brought anything on record to prove that the above referred assets found during the course of search proceedings actually belonged to the assessee. Further, as mentioned above, the relevant source of income was already offered tot ax in the hands of the above two companies (M/s.Silver Shoes Pvt. Ltd. And M/s.Souther Rims Pvt. Ltd) and has reached finality. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is not justified in bringing the above mentioned assets found during the course of search proceedings, to tax in the hands of the assessee. The additions of ₹ 44,91,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, for the A.Y.1994-95, are, therefore, deleted. - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.No.35234 of 2016, W.M.P.No.30354 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mrs. R. Maheswari For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Mrs.D.Kalaiselvi ORDER Heard Mrs.R.Maheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.D.Kalaiselvi, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings had come to an end. 6. Parallely, the petitioner had been pursuing the appeal remedy against the order of assessment for the year 1994-95 dated 29.03.1996 and the appeal was heard by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and an order was passed on 20.12.2012. After taking note of all the factual details, the decision of this Court in Crl.A.No.231 of 2000 and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.480 of 2002 confirming the said judgment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that neither the investigating authorities nor the Assessing Officer have brought anything on record to prove that the assets found, during the course of search proceedings, actually belonged to the assessee. Ultimately the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer is not justified in bringing the said assets, found during the course of search proceedings, to tax in the hands of the assessee. The said order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 20.12.2012 has attained finality. 7. The impugned order is an order purporting to give effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The second respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized as evident from the panjanama prepared on that date, copy of which was served on the petitioner and the seized cash, adjusted against income tax liability of the petitioner has reached finality several years back and the petitioner cannot now raise the issue. Thus, it is submitted that the mater having attained finality in the year 1994 itself, the petitioner cannot now take a contrary stand at present. It is submitted that the petitioner is the person from whom the cash was seized by the Income Tax Department is entitled to receive it back from the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the impugned order is fully justified. 10. The case on hand is not a classical case, as normally arises under Section 132 B (3) of the Income Tax Act. As pointed out earlier the criminal prosecution emanated from a raid conducted by the Income Tax Department and during the course of search proceedings, there was certain seizures effected. The criminal prosecution initiated by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption had ended in a conviction, which order was set aside in an appeal by judgment dated 11.07.2001. While setting aside the conviction, the Court recorded certain findings, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by the Honourable Supreme Court referred to supra is of utmost significance for considering the nature of relief in this writ petition. The Honourable Supreme Court recorded that the prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused (writ petitioner). Further it was held that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she owned it and she has been assessed by the Income Tax Department, it will not be proper to hold the petitioner guilty. Thus, it was held that the petitioner has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money. Further it was held that this case was of the possession and the premises in question was jointly shared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. While on this issue, it is relevant to point out that the criminal prosecution was wholly founded upon the search and seizure operation conducted by the Income Tax Department and the prosecution had examined 53 witnesses and some of them are the officials of the Income Tax Department, such as P.W.51 S.Gan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
