9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly in accordance with law, no case is made out for setting aside the same. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wful authority and for quashing the order dated September 24, 2000, passed by the respondent stopping the operation of the bank accounts by the petitioner. The petitioners have also prayed for return of all the documents seized by the income-tax authorities during the search and seizure of their premises. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 132(1)(c) the authorised officers had the power to seize only those documents/books/money which relate to the income-tax, which has not been disclosed or would not be disclosed to the Income-tax Department. It is submitted that since it was the first year of the operation of the petitioner-company and the time for filing the return had not yet come, no return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er affidavit is that while conducting search at the premises of Kothari Marbles and Kothari Exports, the persons who were present at site did not inform that the petitioner was a company different and distinct from the company belonging to Shri Nandlal Kothari or that the petitioner-company was only a tenant in the premises and it had nothing to do with either Kothari Marbles or Kothari Exports. It is also the case of the respondents that during the search of the premises, they found a document relating to the activities of different companies of the Kothari group of companies and the petitioner was mentioned to be a finance company of the group recently acquired by the Kothari group. It is submitted that during the course of the search, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that Mr. Deepak Baheti was signing the bills of not only the petitioner-company but also of Dee Pearls India Pvt. Ltd. at the same time even though both the concerns were having two independent premises as their offices. It is submitted that if Mr. Deepak Baheti was the managing director of the petitioner-company, there was no question of his signing and issuing bills of Dee Pearls India Pvt. Ltd. which had its office at D-14, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Mr. Deepak Baheti had also stated to have sent fax messages on behalf of Dee Pearls India Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Nandlal Kothari. It is submitted that the lease deed was a fictitious document prepared only to show the existence of two different parties and it did not reflect the true state of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner from operating its bank accounts. It is submitted that the order restraining the petitioner from operating the bank account was not due to the petitioner having not disclosed the same in its books of account but was in the larger interests of the Revenue and with a view to avoid the petitioner from further withdrawing money from the aforesaid accounts. The petitioner in the rejoinder has not denied that Mr. Deepak Baheti, the managing director of the petitioner-company was not only signing the bills and vouchers of the petitioner-company but was also signing the bills and vouchers of Dee Pearls India Pvt. Ltd., which was admittedly a group company of Kotharis. The petitioner has also not denied that a large sum of money was tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, however, the material on record clearly shows that quite a large number of cheques were issued to the petitioner-company for purchase of shares in the name of Shri Nandlal Kothari and his relatives. The respondents have filed an additional affidavit to explain as to how the money had changed hands and how it was transferred from the account of one company to the account of another company. On a careful study of the profiles of these companies it was found that all these companies were having common addresses and common directors. Back tracing these accounts, it was found that actually these companies were laundering money. The total amount of cash deposited in four to five companies exceeded Rs. 90 crores; the source of cash was not expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
