9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi, the owners of the property or Jitendra Mehta to ascertain about the veracity of the document and further to establish that the advance payment of ₹ 3.00 crores stated therein was paid by the assessee out of his own funds. On the contrary, the assessing officer admitted in the remand report dated 20-02-2014 that the said property does not stand in the name of the assessee, i.e., even after the expiry of about five years from the present assessment year, thus supporting the contention of the assessee that the above said property transaction did not fructify. Thus, we are of the view that the assessing officer has made the impugned addition by simply placing reliance on the document without making any further enquiry to authenticate the same, which is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.4984/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2015 - S/Shri B.R.Baskaran And Amit Shukla JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vijay Mehta and Shri Harsh Bhuta For the Respondent : Shri Santosh Kumar ORDER Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 9.6.2014 passed by Ld CIT(A)-38, Mumbai and it relates to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the name of original land owner, meaning thereby the contention of the assessee that the purchase of property did not fructify got vindicated. However, since the loose document addressed to Mrs.Priti Bhabhi stated that sum of ₹ 3 crores was paid as advance to owners of the land, the ld. CIT(A) took the view that the assessee had already paid advance amount of ₹ 3 crores to the land owner, even though the property transaction did not fructify. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to ₹ 3 crores, thus granting a relief of ₹ 17.22 crores. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 5. The Ld A.R first addressed the legal ground urged by the assessee. The Ld A.R submitted that the search was conducted in the hands of the father of the assessee. The impugned letter was held by the assessing officer of searched person to be belonging to the assessee herein and hence the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act was initiated in the hands of the assessee herein. However, the provisions of sec. 153C mandates that the assessing officer of the searched person must arrive at satisfaction that any document seized during the course of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153A was taken in the case of Shri Jitendra Mehta, father of assessee as warrant was executed in the name of Shri Jitendra Mehta. Once warrant is executed in the name of particular person, proceedings u/s 153A can be begun in case of that person which do not require any satisfaction to be recorded by assessing officer. 3. Further, some papers were seized from the premises of Shri Jitendra Mehta, which belonged to assessee, i.e., Shri Deven Mehta. Since the PAN of Shri Deven Mehta was centralized with same assessing officer, i.e DCIT, Central Circle-44, Mumbai he recorded his satisfaction u/s 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961 vide order sheet entry dt. 7.2.3013 (sic) in case of Shri Deven Mehta and issued notice u/s 153C to Shri Deven Mehta for block assessment (copy of satisfaction note is attached). 3. (sic) As it is evident that the assessing officer was same for both the cases i.e. Shri Jitendra Mehta and Shri Deven Mehta, there was no need for another satisfaction note to be recorded in the file of Shri Jitendra Mehta. 9. The satisfaction note referred in the above said letter reads as under:- Reasons for issuing notice u/s 153C of the I.T Act, 1961 In the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been arrived at. However, we are very much doubtful about the validity of said contentions. Under the provisions of sec. 132(4A), where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article of thing found in the possession or control of any person in the course of 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. In the instant case, the search was conducted in the hands of Shri Jitendra Mehta and the impugned document was seized from his possession. Hence, as per the provisions of sec. 132(4A), it should be presumed that the impugned document belong to Shri Jitendra Mehta. Now in order to arrive at the satisfaction that the said document did not belong to Shri Jitendra Mehta but to some other person, the above said presumption should have been rebutted by some positive action, cogent material etc. One of the possible actions, in our view, could be that the assessing officer should have made enquiries about the document with Shri Jitendra Mehta and he should have identified the owner of the document by disowning the same, thus re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m him does not belong to him but to some other person. The second step is- after such satisfaction is arrived at- that the document is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the person to whom the said document belongs . In the present cases, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the first step itself has not been fulfilled. For this purpose it would be necessary to examine the provisions of presumptions as indicated above. Section 132(4A)(i) clearly stipulates that when, inter alia, any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person. It is similarly provided in section 292C(1)(i). In other words, whenever a document is found from a person who is being searched the normal presumption is that the said document belongs to that person. It is for the Assessing Officer to rebut the presumption and come to a conclusion or satisfaction that the document in fact belongs to somebody else. There must be some cogent material available with the Assessing Officer before he/she arrives at the satisfaction that the seized document does not belong to the searched person but to some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
