9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the block period 1-4-1989 to 30-3-2000, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there was no occasion with the respondents to exercise their power of search and seizure under the Income-tax Act and the said powers exercised by them are without jurisdiction? (b) Whether the Tribunal has erred in not excluding the Oral Statements of the parties in the presence of the Documentary Evidence on the record in terms of section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while setting aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana? (c) Once the Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals)- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had already refunded back and handed over the same amount? (h) Whether the authorities below have erred in initiating the present proceedings without impleading the firm R.K. Enterprises whose money was seized. So all the proceedings regarding seizure are liable to be set aside on account of non-impleading of the party i.e. R.K. Enterprises? (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has failed to appreciate that since the currency in question amounting to Rs. 10,25,000 was seized by the Central Excise Department so it was not in the possession of the Petitioner and accordingly the proceedings of search and seizure of Income-tax Deptt. cannot be initiated against the Petitioner in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Amritsar on 28-1-2002 and the records were checked. The assessee was asked to show cause why the amount of Rs. 10,25,000 be not added to his income of the block period. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that the sum of Rs. 10,25,000 was on account of sales realization collected by Shri Rajnish Bhatia, consignee agent of M/s R.K. Enterprises, New Delhi against sale bill Nos. 46 to 56 who used to deposit them in its bank account after incorporating them in the books of account. The Assessing Officer held that the cash of Rs. 10,25,000 seized by the Central Excise Authorities from the residential premises of the assessee on 6-10-1999 represented his income from undisclosed sources and, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue. It has been held therein as under:- "We are of the view that the Tribunal when hearing an appeal against the order of assessment could not go into the question of validity or otherwise of any administrative decision for conducting the search and seizure. The same may be the subject-matter of challenge in independent proceedings where the question of validity or otherwise of administrative order could be gone into. The appellate authority was concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the assessment." 6. Following the aforesaid judgment, it is held that the Tribunal had rightly held that the validity of search and seizure operation could not be gone into by the Tribunal in the appeal proceedings. 7. Adverting to the second submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther released goods amounting to Rs. 7,59,900. This vindicates the Ld. Counsel's averments that the Excise authorities were satisfied with the appellant's submissions. (iv) That the goods seized by the Excise department came to be released except the cash amount of Rs. 10,25,000 which was handed over to the Income-tax Department, despite a letter dated 28-3-2000 from the Central Excise authorities conveying the vacation of the seizure of the currency of Rs. 10,25,000 as per the directions of the Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi-I. This amount of Rs. 10-25 lacs was the only addition made vide the above assessment order. No other infirmity or discrepancy was found. (v) That vide letter F. No. Asstt. CIT/CC-I/Astr/41, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Sh. Rajnish Bhatia reimbursed the sale proceeds collected on behalf of M/s R.K. Enterprises periodically to his principals who in-turn deposited the same in their bank account (a copy of the bank account has been furnished in support of the above contention). It is pertinent to point out that all these facts were confirmed by the concerned parties including M/s. R.K. Enterprises and Sh. Rajnish Bhatia before the Central Excise authorities also. (vii) That from the copies of the returns, and the profit and loss account and balance sheet of M/s R.K. Enterprises, it becomes clear that a sum of Rs. 10-25 lacs was due from Sh. Rajnish Bhatia. Letter C. No. IV (HQRS. PREV) 15/65/99/882, dated 28-3-2000 issued by the Central Excise Authorities, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
