9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals contend identical questions of law and they are arising out of a common order of the Tribunal, they are being decided by this common order. 3. The questions of law proposed by the Revenue in this group of Appeals are as follow:- For the assessment year 1999-2000: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the deletion made by the CIT(A), added by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted investment/receipts of ₹ 23,83,100/ . For the assessment year 2001-2002: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the deletion made by the CIT(A), added by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69 of the Act for each assessment year respectively treating the said transaction as unexplained investment . 5. Being aggrieved by this approach of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) was approached, which deleted the said addition giving various reasons for said deletion. 6. Dissatisfied, Revenue challenged the said decision of the CIT(A) before the ITAT, which concurred with the findings of the CIT(A) and upheld the version of the assessee by its order dated 30.09.2009. The impugned order is challenged, raising aforementioned questions of law for each respective Assessment Year. 7. Heard learned counsel Mrs.Mauna Bhatt for the Revenue and closely scrutinized judgment of all the adjudicating authorities with her assistance. It is v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to avoid identity, the name of assessee-respondent was written. He also emphasized that the amount shown in the name of assessee and others pertain to himself and the same had nothing to do with the entries. This paper was not written by the assessee nor it was signed by him. Moreover, the person who was searched had accepted the transaction and owned the same. He also noted that there was no opportunity given to cross-examine Mr. Vikash Shah. The assesseerespondent was supervisor in his own company and there was nothing to point out that he had also undertaken the task of supervision work of Shri Vikash Shah's business. Moreover, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) referred to by the Assessing Officer was between Shri Vikash Shah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s vital is the factum of belonging and not simple relating for saddling tax liability. When the seized document was neither written by the assessee nor signed by him and when a person from whose possession the same was found had owned the documents as well as the entires made therein, and furthermore, when he admitted that the name of the assessee was used merely as a disguise and the revenue has taxed the person concerned Mr. Vikash Shah inconnection with these entries as rightly held by both the authorities concurrently, the assessee could not have been chased by the Department for the material seized from Mr. Vikash Vyas. 13. The fact which needs to be particularly mentioned is that Mr.Vikash Shah cross-examination was not allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as under: On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions it is apparent that sections 153A, 153B and 153C lay down a scheme for assessment in case of search and requisition. Section 153A deals with procedure for issuance of notice and assessment or reassessment in case of the person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003. Section 153B lays down the time limit for completion of assessment under section 153A. Section 153C which is similarly worded to section 158 BD of the Act, provides that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loose papers recovered during the search proceedings do not belong to the petitioner. It may be that there is a reference to the petitioner inasmuch as his name is reflected in the list under the heading Samutkarsh Members Details and certain details are given under different columns against the name of the petitioner along with other members, however, it is nobody s case that the said documents belong to the petitioner. It is not even the case of Revenue that the said three documents are in the handwriting of the petitioner. In the circumstances, when the condition precedent for issuance of notice is not fulfilled any action taken under section 153C of the Act stands vitiated. We find that in the present case, very simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
