9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under : The Petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as an independent Director of one M/s. Toporder Properties Pvt. Ltd. which was one of the Sterling Biotech Ltd. group companies. The said group of entities, including the Petitioner, was subjected to search and seizure action under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) and survey operations under Section 133A of the Act on 28/06/2011. Subsequent to the search, the Assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 20112012 declaring total income of Rs. 7.20 Lakhs (rounded of). The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 153A read with 143(3) of the Act on 20/03/2014 accepting the Petitioner's returned income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Act. Survey u/s. 133A was conducted in the case of M/s. PMT Machines Ltd., 20/B, Khatau Bldg., A. D. Marg, Fort, Mumbai by DDIT, (Inv) UnitI, on 28.6.2011. The survey was conducted simultaneously when the Search & Seizure action was taken in the case of M/s. Sterling Group of cases on 28.06.2011 by the DDIT (Inv.) Unit VII(4), Mumbai. During the course of survey action 133A the survey team impounded certain documents which includes Annexures A4 and A5 inter alia. On perusal of these Annexures it is observed that these impounded documents include vouchers. These vouchers show the payments have been made to Shri R. B. Dixit on various dates as detailed below : Annexure Page No. Date Amount (Rs.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and change of view. In the absence of the additional evidence other than seized material we hereby state that provisions of reassessment under section 147/148 is not warranted and is bad in law as it amounts to change in view." 6. The Assessing Officer rejected such objections by an order dated 19.09.2018. In such order, in relation to the Petitioner's contention of the documents relied upon in the reasons already available with the Assessing Officer during the original assessment, he stated as under : "5. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 21112, the assessee was not countered by the Assessing Officer with the entires found in Annexure A7 seized during the search action at the premises of St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he has referred to two facts. Firstly, as per the seized documents (AnnexureA7) during the search, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ was stated to have been paid in cash by the Assessee to one S.K.G. According to the Assessing Officer, the Assessee had cash on hand of Rs. 20,00,000/ which was undisclosed. The second fact which the Assessing Officer relied upon was the seizure of vouchers during the search showing a total payment of Rs. 85,35,000/to the Assessee. Here again, the Assessing Officer believed that the Assessee had thus received cash amount of Rs. 85,35,000/. 10. Undisputed fact is that all these documents were before the Assessing Officer when the original scrutiny under assessment under Section 153A read with 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso." As per this Explanation thus, production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 147. Here is not a case where the Assessee is seeking to rely on a disclosure which the Revenue can seek to bring within the fold of the said Explanation. Here is a case where the Department already had collected certain documents and materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. If the Assessing Officer did not, for some reason, advert t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
