9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come found during the search proceedings, is not satisfied. In fact, at the very outset, after a preliminary hearing, we had asked the learned Counsel for the Respondents-Revenue whether the Revenue would still want to persist with the impugned notice under Section 158BC of the Act. On instructions, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents-revenue informed us that the Respondents-revenue seeks to press the impugned notice and seek dismissal of the present Petition. In the above view, this is the fit case where costs should be awarded to the Petitioner. The Respondents-revenue i.e the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.1) is directed to pay the costs of ₹ 20,000/to the Petitioner within four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Gautam Sen is shown as Proprietor). The address shown with the bank was found to be fictitious. However a telephone diary of Mr. Nirmal Suchanti (Concept Group) had the name of the Petitioner with his telephone numbers mentioned therein alongwith the name of M/s Devaki Hospital in brackets. 4 On the aforesaid basis the Respondent-Revenue carried out the search on 16th January, 1999 under Section 132 of the Act on the Petitioner and his premises. During the course of the search, an amount of ₹ 20,000/in cash was found in his house which was explained to the satisfaction of the Revenue. Nothing incriminating was found during the course of search. During the course of investigation, the Petitioner explained the fact that he is in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-revenue have field an affidavit-in-reply of one Shri Dinesh Singh, Deputy Director of Income Tax dated 29 August 2000. However, in the affidavit-in-reply there is no averment made with regard to any incriminating material found during the course of search linking the Petitioner to any undisclosed income. In fact, the averment of the Petitioner that nothing incriminating was found during the course of the search is not challenged. Thus in the absence of the same, there is no basis to infer that the Petitioner was in possession of undisclosed income. This is not disputed by the Respondents revenue at the hearing of the Petition. 7 It may be pointed out (although not strictly necessary) that the affidavit in reply does not mention a word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Surgery at GT Hospital. On a careful examination of his antecedents and the related records, it is concluded that Dr. Sen has no involvement in the said bank accounts. Moreover, the socalled Sudhir Jain is an nonexistent person. Shri Nirmal Suchanti also consequently admitted to have owned the two stated bank accounts. In other words, no incriminating documents on Dr. Sen's personal case are found. Cash of ₹ 20,000/was found in the house where his parents also stay. 8 From the above extract of the appraisal report, it is clear as daylight that no incriminating documents were found during the course of search nor was it found that he was in any manner involved in the bank account with his name in the said Bank. Thus i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
