9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively. On August 26, 1987, search was conducted under section 132(1) of the Act at the premises of the petitioner which went on up to August 27, 1987. During the search, statements were recorded by the concerned authorities and on December 10, 1987, order under section 132(5) of the Act was passed by the assessing authority. In this order, income for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 was computed. On February 15, 1988, the respondents issued notices for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 to the petitioner, copies of which are placed on record as annexures 11 and 12. The reasons for issuance of notices are placed on record by counsel for the respondents along with reply which are annexure R/2 for the year 1984-85 and an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submits that this court directed the respondents on July 30, 1992, to keep the relevant record in court but the respondents did not choose to produce the original record even before this court. It is also submitted that on an earlier occasion, when the matter was taken up by this court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have failed to produce the relevant documents despite direction, therefore, an adverse inference may be drawn against the respondents and the notices issued under section 148 by the respondents deserve to be quashed only on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even the respondents proceeded on an absolutely wrong assumption of facts which is clear from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, cannot be acted upon and cannot be said to be reasons in the eye of law as the said orders have been interpolated to alter the nature of the document by inclusion of reasons which were not in existence when the said reasons were recorded. It is also submitted that in fact even annexures R/2 and R/3 are not only void because of the above reason but in fact appear to have been prepared after issuance of notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act; therefore, also the notices under section 148 of the Act of 1961 are void and the authority has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that assessments for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were not reopened merely because of non-disclosure of F.D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India v. Raj Singh Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200, wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court had drawn an inference against the Department for non-production of the relevant record. I perused the documents placed on record and also considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. It is clear from annexure 23, F.D.R. of Rs. 50,000 was treated as an F.D.R. of Rs. 5 lakhs and F.D.R. was purchased from the funds received from deposits of the petitioner with Laxmandas Raghunath Parihar. The respondents in their order (annexure 9) under section 132(5) at internal page 3 gave a number of this F.D.R. 249771 dated December 12, 1984, but against this mentioned Rs. 5 lakhs instead of Rs. 50,000, therefore, it appears that the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
