9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentatives of the respondent. Not disputed that copies of all material/ documents seized during the search and seizure operations were not provided to the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent was also not provided the copy of the panchnama in respect of the documents seized from the premises occupied by his brother. More importantly, it is not disputed that that the respondent had sent several letters, including letters dated 27.04.2010 (Ex. DW-1/D) and 20.05.2010 (Ex. DW-1/C), seeking copies of the documents for the purpose of filing the returns. But copies of all the documents seized had not been provided to the respondent. Contention that the respondent was further required to specify the document which was required by him for fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct) CBI, Delhi, whereby the respondent s appeal against an order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned ACMM convicting the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ), was allowed and the respondent was acquitted of committing the said offence. 2. The revenue alleged that the respondent had willfully defaulted in filing a return pursuant to the notices issued under Section 153A of the Act and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Act. 3. The aforesaid controversy arises in the following context:- 3.1 That search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were conducted in respect of Standard Watch Group of Concerns. This included sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of income tax returns for the whole family. The respondent further stated that there were certain disputes between his family and his brother (Shri Suresh Gupta) and the complete records had not been returned by Shri Suresh Gupta to him or his family. He stated that he had no copies of the earlier returns and/or related documents. However, he further stated that the return filed earlier be treated as a return in response to the notice under Section 153A of the Act. 3.2 The respondent contended that due to family disputes and unavoidable reasons, he did not have the details or copies of the returns. And, there was no malafide intention on his part for the non-compliance of the notices under Section 153A of the Act. 3.3 Subsequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same, the respondent preferred an appeal, which was allowed by an order dated 28.11.2015 (which is impugned herein by the Revenue department). 3.10 The learned Special Judge (Appellate Court) did not accept the contention that the notices were vague or that the sanction for prosecution was not proper. However, the appellate court held that the default committed by the respondent was not willful. The appellate court, essentially, accepted the respondent s contention that he did not have the necessary documents and although he had applied for the copies of the documents seized by the income tax authorities, the same were not supplied to him and therefore, his failure to file the return in response to the notice under Section 153A of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which businesses were carried out. 7. Concededly, the respondent had issued a letter dated 27.04.2010 requesting for inspection and copies of the seized material in reference to the notice under Section 158A of the Act. It is material to note that the request was not only for the material documents seized from the part of the premises occupied by the respondent, but also for the material seized during search, which also included the documents seized from the floor of the premises occupied by his brother. The respondent had also sought statement of various persons recorded during search. The said letter dated 27.04.2010 (Ex. DW-1/D), clearly indicates that the respondent specifically indicated that the said documents were required fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral letters, including letters dated 27.04.2010 (Ex. DW-1/D) and 20.05.2010 (Ex. DW-1/C), seeking copies of the documents for the purpose of filing the returns. But copies of all the documents seized had not been provided to the respondent. 10. The contention that the respondent was further required to specify the document which was required by him for filing the return, to rebut the presumption of culpable mental state, is unpersuasive. The returns for the relevant assessment year had already been filed in due course. The respondent was now called upon to once again file the return pursuant to the allegedly incriminating material seized during the search and seizure operations. Plainly, in the circumstances, it would be necessary for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
