9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 18,23,883/- based on seized documents. 3. A search u/s.132(1) was conducted in the cases of one Shri Sanjay R.Shah & Meghmani Group on 22/09/2005. Thereafter, an assessment on this assessee was made u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 30/09/2008. It was noted by the Assessing Officer that a diary marked as Annexure A-5 was found during the course of search from the business premises of M/s.Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. Panchvati, Ahmedabad. This diary was found to be belonged to the assessee, namely, Shri Alkesh M.Patel. It was found that the assessee was working as Manager (Import & Export) of M/s.Meghmani Dyes & intermediates Ltd. A statement was recorded u/s.132(1) on 28/11/2005 and in a reply the assessee has confirmed that the said diary belonged to him. The Assessing Officer has also noted that on the said diary, the name and phone numbers of the assessee were noted. Since the said diary belonged to the assessee, therefore the Revenue Department had initiated proceedings against the assessee u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A of the I.T.Act. A notice u/s.153C r.w.s.153A of the I.T.Act was served o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 1,02,000/- had already been offered by the assessee. Resultantly, the view taken by the Learned CIT(Appeals) is hereby confirmed. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 7. Apropos to Ground No.2, it was noted by the Assessing Officer that consequent upon a search u/s.132 of the I.T.Act at the residence of Shri Lalit K.Patel a pen-drive was seized by the Revenue Department which contained certain notings regarding of the salary to employees. In the said pen-drive, cash amount has also been mentioned and in the statement recorded u/s.131(1A) of the I.T.Act dated 21/11/2005, Mr.Patel has stated that the cash mentioned represented the expenditure to be incurred by those respective persons. The Assessing Officer has noted that the name of Shri Alkesh Patel appeared in the seized documents as an employee of Meghmani Group. It was further explained by Mr.Patel that being a responsible employee of Meghmani Group, they were allowed to incur several expenses while performing their duties and the cash amount was given with the permitted limit for incurring business expenses. 7.1. In the assessment order, there is a mention of certain proceedings before the Settlement Commission. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnima Enterprise. Returnback - Manglam A/c. Alkeshbhai - ₹ 18,23,883" which has not bee explained by the assessee." 7.3. In respect of above cash given to the employees, the explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that there were certain disclosures on the part of Meghmani Group concerns and in total ₹ 5.90 crores have been offered as an addition income in the following manner:- "2. Some of the major issues covered in the said statement are summarized below. i. As regards page no.94 of Annexure-A-4, in reply to question no.37 & 38, he admitted that the amount of ₹ 1,01,00,000/- is paid out of his undisclosed income ii. As regards page no.93 of Annexure A-4, in reply to question no.39, he stated that the said page contains details of receiptpayment transactions of his family members, who are director/partner in Meghmani Group Concerns. He also admitted that of admitted that the said transactions shows unaccounted income of ₹ 4 Crores. iii. As regards page no.1 to 49 of Annexure A-6, in reply to question no.40, he admitted that the said pages contain transactions of unaccounted income of ₹ 1.5 Crores. iv. In reply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent side is reflected to be payment made to different persons. It is submitted that against the amount of ₹ 18,23,885/- which is considered in the appellant's hands, the narration which is reflected in the assessment order clearly shows that this amount represents some expenditure by Meghmani group which is paid to different parties and not to the appellant. This itself suggest that it is with reference to certain expenses of Meghmani Group. The appellant is an employee of Meghmani group, doing various duties and it is also noted by the A.O. that the expenditure incurred through staff member. It cannot be considered to be in nature of remuneration on presumption basis. Even otherwise, the entire amount cannot be considered as receipt of the appellant particularly when there are various names written against that figure. Even the narration itself suggest that it is expenditure incurred by Meghmani group for its business and not any payment to the appellant like remuneration. Accordingly, I am of the view that the presumption of the A.O. that such payment is income of the appellant is totally baseless. The addition is, therefore, deleted." 8.1. With this brief background, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No.2086 to 2009 (Gujarat High Court) dated 27/04/2011 3. CIT vs. Amrish R.Patel Tax Appeal No.444 of 2010 to Tax Appeal No.449 of 2010 (Gujarat High Court) dated 26/07/2011 4. CIT vs. M/s.Gambhir Silk Mills Tax Appeal No.1493 of 2010 (Gujarat High Court) dated 21/12/2011 5. CIT vs. Jyotindra V.Vasa Tax Appeal No.99 of 2011 (Gujarat High Court) dated 20/03/2012 11. On the other hand, from the side of the Revenue, ld.Sr.DR Mr.Phagu Oram has informed that there were specific documents which were found belonging to the assessee; namely, a diary which had assessee's name and other assessee's information duly recorded therein as well as a pen-drive in which an amount of remuneration was noted. He has placed reliance on certain observation in this regard made in the assessment order. 12. We have heard both the sides at some length. The undisputed fact is that a diary was found during the course of search and that diary was undisputedly belonging to the assessee. The assessee has not denied that the said diary in fact belonged to him. Apart from the said diary, the Assessing Officer has noted that there was a pen-drive/zip-drive which contained various work books including sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion, the Assessing Officer has rightly acquired the jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings u/s.153C of the I.T.Act. Resultantly, we find no force in the cross-objection raised by the assessee. Therefore, this cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. [B] IT(ss)A No.145/Ahd/2010 - in the case of Shri Gaurang P.Patel 13. Grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced below and are hereby decided as follows: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 90,000/- made on account of undisclosed income based on seized documents. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 26,63,305/- based on seized documents. 13.1. In this case, assessment was made u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 30/09/2008 on total income of ₹ 36,38,811/- against the additional income offered of ₹ 7,36,000/-. 13.2. We have been informed that facts in respect of both these grounds were identical with the facts as discussed hereinabove in the appeal of Shri Alkesh M.Patel(supra). We have already taken a view and thereupon affirmed the findings of the Learned CIT(Appeals). In identical manner, we here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
