9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER SHEKHAR JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior standing and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, counsel. Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal with Mr. Ravi Pratap and Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Advocates. O R D E R CM APPL 27325/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 502/2016 CM APPL 27347/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 505/2016 CM APPL 27352/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 506/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA Nos. 502/2016, 503/2016, 505/2016 506/2016 2. These are four appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) directed against a common order dated 27th January, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on 10th January, 2012 in the case of Minda Group. During the course of search and seizure operation, Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, stated to be an entry operator, was also searched. In his statement, he is purported to have accepted that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries to the group companies of Mr. Ashok Minda. He admitted that he was a Director of several companies of which five were ATN International Limited; Silicon Valley Infotech Limited, Blue Chip India Limited; Amluckie Investment Co. Ltd. and Bahubali Properties Limited. He also admitted that previously his staff members and his friends were Directors of Dhansafal Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., Whiteline Barter Ltd. and Arihant Ltd. and in that way he was related to Minda Group of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -II, Kolkata on 7th March, 2014 stating that the statement of Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain was again recorded on 27th February, 2014 in which he retracted from his earlier statement given on 10th January, 2012 during the course of search. It is stated by the AO that Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain has stated that during the search he was under tremendous pressure and under pressure he has admitted he has provided accommodation entry to Minda Group of companies. The AO rejected the said retraction and proceeded to make the additions to the taxable income of the Assessees. 9. Among the various grounds raised by the Assessee before the CIT (A), one pertained to whether in fact the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act were valid. The CIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure action in the case of the Minda Group. These documents are copies of the balance sheet abstracts and company s general profile, balance sheet, profit and loss account, auditor s account, copies of income tax returns and copy of trial balances. 12. Apart from the above, there was no other material referred to that could give rise to the belief about income having escaped assessment. Each of the above documents was already available with the AO when the initial assessments were finalised under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Court enquired from Mr. Shivpuri whether, in fact, there was any new or fresh material which could form the basis for the AO for re-opening the assessments. Mr. Shivpuri submitted that the trial balances were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or other valuable article or thing seized as handed over to the AO of the Assessee, are duly disclosed and reflected in the returns filed by the Assessee, no further interference would be called for. Similarly, if the books of accounts/documents seized do not reflect any undisclosed income, the assessments already made cannot be interfered with. Merely because valuable articles and/or documents belonging to the Assessee have been seized and handed over to the AO of the Assessee would not necessarily require the AO to reopen the concluded assessments and reassess the income of the Assessee. 14. As far as the present cases are concerned, the documents and material seized are only the balance sheet, audit reports etc., which did not ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
