2000 (12) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued u/s 158BC read with section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction and legality of the proceedings initiated for block assessment.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued u/s 158BC read with Section 158BD:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated August 29, 2000, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, u/s 158BC read with section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that it had been regularly assessed for income tax and engaged in the business of ship-breaking. It claimed that during search proceedings against Mahendra H. Shah and Hemant C. Shah, no books of account, documents, or assets belonging to the petitioner were discovered to conclude that it had any undisclosed income. The petitioner contended that the condition precedent for exercising powers u/s 158BD was not satisfied, as no documents or assets belonging to the petitioner were found in the search proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction and Legality of the Proceedings Initiated for Block Assessment:
The respondent, representing the Department, argued that the search operations revealed a racket involving ship breakers at Alang to convert black money into white. The modus operandi involved depositing cash receipts from ship breakers into various bank accounts and issuing cheques against this cash. The petitioner was alleged to have deposited Rs. 58,72,000 in cash and received cheques/demand drafts in the garb of sales to Royal Enterprises, Mumbai, which was found to be a non-existent entity. The Department claimed that the petitioner had converted unaccounted income into legally accounted funds through bogus sales.

The court considered the submissions and held that the action u/s 158BD was justified. It stated that the Assessing Officer only needed to be satisfied that the books of account or other documents found in the search showed undisclosed income of a person other than the one against whom the search was conducted. The court found that the definition of "undisclosed income" included income based on entries in the books of account or other documents showing concealment of the real source of income. The court concluded that the facts revealed in the search operations provided relevant material for forming an opinion that the petitioner had not truly disclosed its income, justifying the action u/s 158BD.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The action initiated by the respondent-authority u/s 158BD read with section 158BC was deemed to be within jurisdiction and legal. Consequently, the rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs.