9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal, cannot assist the case of the respondent. Firstly, the said document is not signed by anybody, neither the sellers nor the purchasers. The document reflects proposed transaction of an immovable property. The law enjoins every person to compulsorily register a document involving transfer of immovable property valued at more than ₹ 100 and hence in absence of any other corroborating evidence that such a transaction took place between the parties the Court is not expected to raise a presumption that a transaction took place in violation of the law of the land. However, apart from the fact that there are eight purchasers and six sellers and none of the parties have appended their signatures to the document, what is most material is the fact that the vendors are the six petitioners who are described to be co-owners of the immovable property. Thus, even if for the sake of argument the document in question is treated as a relevant piece of evidence only for the purpose of initiating proceedings, even then no entity by the name of M/s Jalaram Theatre, a partnership firm, is mentioned in the document belying the claim of the respondent authorities to the contrary. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipts from cinema and unaccounted payments. 4. Heard Mr. Varun Patel for Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The learned advocate, after reiterating the facts, contended that s. 158BC of the Act entitled an AO to issue notice for filing a return in the prescribed form in case of a person who had been searched under s. 132 of the Act but as there was no entity in the name and style of M/s Jalaram Theatre the petitioners could not be called upon to furnish such return of income for the block period by treating the petitioners as partners of M/s Jalaram Theatre. 5. On behalf of the respondent authorities it was submitted by Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel, that the petitioners had at no point of time challenged the warrant of authorisation and the only challenge was to the notice issued under s. 158BC of the Act; therefore, even if the search was an invalid search, subsequent notice under s. 158BC of the Act could not be struck down. Elaborate submissions were made on the basis of the averments made in affidavits in reply dt. 6th Oct., 2000, 9th Oct., 2000, 10th Dec., 2000, and 11th Dec., 2000, to submit that the anne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further approved by Director of IT (Inv.), Ahmedabad on 26th Aug., 1998, there was no proposal and no approval in relation to either the petitioners in their individual capacity, or as partners of M/s Jalaram Theatre as an entity. 8. Subsequently on 3rd Sept., 1998, Asstt. Director of IT(Inv.)-2, Rajkot, proposed conversion of s. 133A proceedings into proceedings under s. 132 of the Act by recording the following satisfaction note : Satisfaction note. The actions under s. 133A are going on at the following premises : (a) M/s Krishna Stores, Maliwada Road. (b) M/s Jayshree Talkies, Jayshree Road. It is noticed that unaccounted cash is lying at M/s Krishna Stores. The survey action at M/s Jayshree Talkies has led to discovery of evidences which establish suppression of receipts from cinema and unaccounted payments. I have reasons to believe that the unaccounted assets have not been and would not be disclosed for the purpose of IT Act. Similarly, the incriminating documents would not be produced in response to summons under s. 131(1A)/131(1) or notices under s. 143(2)/142(1). Warrant of authorisation under s. 132 may therefore kindly be issued. Sd/ Ille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , was ever subjected to search proceedings under s. 132 of the Act. Sec. 158BC of the Act stipulates that in a case where any search has been conducted under s. 132 of the Act in the case of any person then the AO is entitled to serve notice to such person, viz., person who is subjected to search proceedings under s. 132 of the Act, requiring such person to furnish within such time as may be specified, but not less than 15 days, a return of income in the prescribed form. The Revenue has, therefore, in the first instance to show that the entity on whom a notice under s. 158BC of the Act is issued is the entity or the person in whose case search proceedings under s. 132 of the Act have been conducted. In the present case, from the record of the respondent authority and the facts which have come on record of this petition it becomes apparent that the prerequisite conditions empowering the AO to exercise the powers for issuing notice under s. 158BC of the Act are not fulfilled. 12. During course of hearing reliance had been placed on a draft document relating to proposed sale of property known as Jalaram Theatre for a sum of ₹ 27,50,000 to submit that the said document was une ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
