9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l CIT-D.R. ORDER Per Bench This is a bunch of 07 appeals related to one assessee-Shri Parma Ram Bhakar. The appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2001-02 and cross appeals for the A.Y. 2007-08 are directed against the separate orders each dated 26/02/2010 of ld. CIT (A), Central, Jaipur while the appeals of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 have been filed against the separate orders each dated 08/03/2010 and appeals pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 22/11/2010 of ld. CIT(A), Central, Jaipur. Since, these appeals are having some common issues and were heard together, so, these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2 In these appeals, common issue raised by the assessee vide grounds No. 1 4 relates to the legal issue concerning the validity of the assessment order. 3. Facts related to this issue in brief are that a search operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for brevity) was carried out on 29/03/2007 at room No. 403 of hotel Shalimar, Jaipur, where the assessee was staying. During the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usticiable. Reliance was placed on the following case-laws:- 1) Ashok Kumar Soni Vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd.) 2) CIT Vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation and others (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC) 3) Sanjay Kumar Mody Vs. DI (Inv.) (2005) 278 ITR 314 (Cal.) 4) CIT Vs. Chitra Devi Soni (2009) 313 ITR 174 (Raj.). SLP against this decision was dismissed as reported in (2009) 313 ITR (St.) 28 5) Raghuraj Pratap Singh and others Vs. ACIT (2009) 222 CTR (All.) 153 6) Mohd. Raffique Bhai and others Vs. ACIT (2000) 67 TTJ (Ahd.) 191. 5. Learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee did not find merit in the submissions/explanation of assessee by observing in para 3.2 of the impugned order for the A.Y. 2001-02 as under:- 3.2. I have considered the submissions made by the A.R. and have perused the material on record. In this case the asstt. was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143/153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per section 153A, in the case of a person where search is initiated u/s 132 after 31/05/2003, the A.O. shall issue a notice to him calling for return of income for each of the asstt. Years falling within 6 assessment years immediately preceding the asstt. year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the search was conducted in this case on the basis of valid authroisation u/s 132. Further, there is no case of Sanjay Kumar Modi at 278 ITR 314 which has been relied upon by the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned assessment order is valid and cannot be quashed. These grounds of appeal are, therefore, dismissed. Now, the assessee is in appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case there was no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer because a raid was conducted by the CBI on false information that the assessee was possessing a huge amount of cash and that information was provided to the income Tax Department. However, no cash was found from the possession of the assessee neither any incriminating document was found. It was further stated that nothing was requisitioned from the police by the income-tax department. So, there was no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for conducting the search on the assessee and since there was no material to suggest search on the assessee, therefore, the search was invalid. 7. In his rival submissions, ld. D.R. submitted that initiation and conduct o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en under section 132(1) of the Act, therefore, it is relevant to consider the provisions contained in the said section which read as under:- 132(1) Where the [ Director General or Director] or the [ Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] [or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner] [or Joint Commissioner], in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that- (a) any person to whom a summons under sub- section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922 ) or under subsection (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub- section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Incometax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922 ), or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or (b) any person to whom a summon or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found as a result of such search; [Provided that bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, being stock-intrade of the business, found as a result of such search shall not be seized but the authorised officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock-in-trade of the business;] (iv) place marks of identification on any books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (v) make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing: [Provided that where any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft referred to in clause (i) is within the are of jurisdiction of any [ Chief Commissioner or Commissioner], but such [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), then notwithstanding anything contained in section [ 120], it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers under this subsection in all cases where he has reason to believe that any delay in getting the authorisation for the [ Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] having jurisdiction over such person may be prejudicial to the interest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars that the department acted upon the information provided by the police department on 29/03/2007 and on the same day, the warrant of authorisation was issued and the search was conducted, but nothing is brought on record to substantiate that any cash was found, although, search was conducted on the information that undisclosed cash being carried out by the assessee. On the similar issue, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Chitra Devi Soni (2009) 313 ITR 174 (Raj) held as under:- ..that the Revenue failed to produce records containing relevant material including information in the possession of the competent authority, on the basis of which it had entertained the reason to believe the existence of one or more of the eventualities covered by clauses (a) to (c) of section 132(1). In the absence of a legal search, in accordance with the provisions of section 132 the block period or the previous year in which the search was conducted could not be said to have come into existence and therefore any assessment order based on such search could not stand. The Tribunal was justified in holding that when the authorization to conduct the search based on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
