TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ques are obtained from other concerned per sons with whom they may have transactions. The petitioner is concerned with realisation of the sale price whether the payment is made by one mode or the other. The petitioner's accounts are audited under the Income-tax Act as well as under the Companies Act. The search was initiated under section 132 of the Act in the case of Mahendra H. Shah and Hemant C. Shah and their group concerns. These persons are not in any way connected with the petitioner and the petitioner does not have dealings with them by way of sale of goods or even otherwise. The said per sons (hereinafter referred to as "the raidees"), are engaged in the business of finance in the name of their various concerns, but the petitioner had not received any cheque issued by them at the instance of the purchasers of materials from the petitioner or even otherwise. It is further averred by the petitioner that the raidees might have made deposits with the petitioner but such deposits are by cheque, repayment is by cheque, interest payment is by cheque. The petitioner had deducted tax from interest. It is also the case of the petitioner that the deposit, interest payment, TDS and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the account of 'A', 'A' would transfer to the credit of account of 'B'. 'B' again would pay to the credit of account 'C' and 'C' to 'D' and so on. Finally, the cheque would be issued by the last holder of the bank account to the ship breakers. So the abovementioned parties were carrying on the business of convening black money into legally accounted funds for a meagre commission. It may be submitted that the abovementioned parties are not assessed to tax and have never filed a return of income so far. The seized materials in the case of the abovementioned parties indicate that the petitioner was involved in convening its unaccounted funds into legally accounted funds in the garb of sales made/loans received by him which were not found to be genuine. The petitioner, Premjibhai and Sons, during the financial year 1998-99 has deposited a sum of Rs. 85,02,994 in cash and received cheques/DDs through the bank account of Shri Mahendra H. Shah in the garb of having made sales to Rajiv Sales Corporation, Mumbai, as also a sum of Rs. 47,19,653 during the financial year 1997-98 in the garb of having made sales to Sheetal Marketing, Ahmedabad, and Rs. 14,40,100 during the financial year 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossession of undisclosed income during the block period. It is further stated that the petitioner's claim regarding the genuineness of the transactions will be inquired into during the proceedings under section 158BD. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the ground that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has undisclosed income. It is stated that in reality it is a case of cash credit and sales which are recorded in the books of account of the petitioner and are, therefore, disclosed income and could only form the subject-matter of regular assessment under section 143(3). It is further submitted in the rejoinder that the Assessing Officer of the raidees has to make an affidavit of his satisfaction and that the respondent is not the Assessing Officer of the raidees. Neither the Assessing Officer of the raidees has made an affidavit nor does the respondent's affidavit state that the Assessing Officer of the raidees was satisfied under section 158BC. It is also contended that the notice is given for the wrong assessment years 1988-89 to 1998-99 when in law and facts it has to be for the assessment years 1990-91 to 2000-2001. At the hearing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1 to 5 are identical and, therefore, for the reasons recorded in the said judgment dated january 24, 2001, we reject the aforesaid contentions. However, since contention No. 6 is based on the facts of the individual case, we propose to deal with the said contention only. Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the respondent has not produced any evidence on record on the basis of which they have purported to come to an adverse conclusion against the petitioner. It is submitted that Special Civil Application No. 10396 of 2000 ([2001] 251 ITR 608), filed by Rushil Industries Ltd. was dismissed by this court after considering the facts in that case. Hence, dismissal of the said petition cannot seal the fate of the present petitioner in this case. In this connection, we would refer to the averments made in the reply affidavit, which are already quoted hereinabove. It has been pointed out that in the garb of having made sales to Rajiv Sales Corporation, Mumbai, Sheetal Marketing, Ahmedabad and Hiren Enterprise, Mumbai, the petitioner, Premjibhai and Sons, has convened unaccounted money into accounted money to the tune of Rs. 85,02,994, Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
