9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial Area, Rania, Kanpur Dehat. Incriminating material against the assessee-appellant was found at their factory premises and also at the premises of Anurag Pandey of the Pandey Group. The incriminating documents found at the premises of Anurag Pandey was labelled as BK-16, 17, 18, 19 and LP-2. The incriminating documents, which were seized at the factory premises of the assessee-appellant were labelled as BK-2, BK-5, BK-5 and BK-5. 3. On the basis of the search, proceeding against the assessee-appellant was initiated under Section 153A of the Act. During the course of the proceeding, the Income Tax authority found that the warrant of authorisation issued under Section 132 of the Act was in the name of "Shivam Gram Udyog Sansthan Pvt. Limited" and was not in the name of the appellant, namely, "M/s Shivam Gram Udyog Sansthan". Since the warrant of authorisation was issued in the name of a wrong entity, the Income Tax authority suo moto dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act. 4. On the basis of the incriminating documents, found against the assessee at the premises of Anurag Pandey, a satisfactory note was prepared indicating that the competent authority wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 and notice under Section 153C read with 153A is being issued for the verification and assessment of correct income of the assessee. 5. The proceeding under Section 153C of the Act was subsequently dropped by the assessing authority by an order dated 31.12.2008. The said order is extracted hereunder: "A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 19.04.2006 in the residential and business premises of Pandey Group of cases. The search period for assessment relates to the Financial Year 2006-07 relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 and previous six assessment years i.e. from A.Y.2001-02 to 2006-07. During the search operation, premises No.E-1, E-13, Site-1, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Rania, Kanpur was also covered. The warrant of authorisation is in the name of Shivam Gramodyog Pvt.Ltd. The correct name of the assessee is Shivam Gramodyog Sansthan. Action U/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated and a notice u/s.153C read with 153A was issued in the name of Shivam Gramodyog Sansthan. There exists no case in the name of M/s. Shivam Gramodyag Pvt.Ltd. No satisfaction can be recorded in the proceeding in the name of M/s Shivam Gramodyag Sanstha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1727 Kattha 24116 110/- 26,52,760 03-04 Total 51,03,960/- The assessee has shown the consumption, sale and closing stock in the Trading & Profit and Loss account as under: 1. Consumed Rs.17,24,363/- 2. Sales Rs. 6,41,799/- 3. Closing stock Rs.13,17,201/- The details as per above table do not match with the details as declared in the Trading & Profit and Loss account. The figures in the seized documents are higher. Therefore, I have reason to believe that assessee's income which is more than Rs. 1,00 lac, has escaped assessment. The action u/s 147 is being taken with the approval of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur to assess the income escaped from tax. The approval of Learned CIT (Central), Kanpur is received vide letter F. No. CIT(C)/ KNP/ approv/ u/s.148/ 09-10/2611 dated 05.03.2010. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 is being issued." 7. Pursuant to the proceeding initiated under Section 147 of the Act, an assessment order was passed. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal, which was allowed and the assessment order was set aside on the ground that re-asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 153C of the Act, i.e., under Chapter XIV-B and not under Chapter XIV of the Act. 12. It was thus contended that having regard to the scheme of various provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act are not attracted. The learned counsel contended that consequently proceeding cannot be initiated under Section 148 of the Act and the same was without jurisdiction. It was also contended that in any case the material or the evidence which was seized under Section 132 of the Act could not be considered in reassessment proceeding under Section 148 of the Act. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision in Ram Ballabh Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 288 ITR 374. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the proposition advanced by the appellant appears to be attractive, but, we find that the submission cannot be accepted. The appellant is trying to confuse two issues in order to gain undue benefit which cannot be permitted. We find that there were two sets of incriminating documents seized against the appellant. One set of documents, so seized, were found at the appellant's premises and the other set of doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
