9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act were initiated against the assessee in respect of assessment year 2004-05. Keeping in view the value of the aforesaid goods seized which aggregated to Rs. 1,65,23,783, income was assessed at that amount and Income-tax/penalty in the sum of Rs. 61,44,777 was demanded from him. It may be pointed out at this stage that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had given names and particulars of 14 parties who had made the bookings of the aforesaid articles/goods with him. These 14 parties were duly identified. When they were sent summons by the Assessing Officer, they appeared before the Assessing Officer pursuant to these summons and owned the responsibility, namely, they specifically admitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. The role of assessee was merely to book their parcels for onward transmission from Delhi to Ahmedabad. Under Section 132(4A) where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion jewellery and other valuable articles or things are or is found in possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person. The presumption under Section 132(4A) is a rebuttable presumption, which can be rebutted by adducing sufficient and necessary evidence. The assessee had given the names of 14 parties i.e., angarias who had booked the parcels with him for onward transmission. 14 angarias ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs to these persons and they had booked the same with the assessee. It is clear that the assessee only acted as a booking agent and the goods in question did not belong to him. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that action, if at all, should have been taken against those 14 Angarias and if the Angarias are not able to give the particulars of the real owners, they can be treated as owners of goods and fastened with the liability if any. Without stating much, in this behalf, insofar as the assessee herein is concerned, undoubtedly he is not responsible for the aforesaid seized goods and therefore, the value of those goods could not have been taxed at his hands.
3. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
