9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter-alia, impugning the notices dated 18.10.2023 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the assessment years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2021-22. 2. It is the petitioner's case that the said notices have been issued without jurisdiction as no incriminating material has been found either belonging to the petitioner or pertaining to the petitioner in any search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or any requisition made under Section 132A of the Act. 3. This petition was taken up for hearing on 08.11.2024 and this court was of the prima facie view that there is no material on record, which was found in any search or requisitioned, either bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... floor of the said property). According to the learned counsel for the Revenue, the said deed confirmed that the price of one floor was about half of the total consideration mentioned in the said agreement to sell, that is, about Rs. 2,48,50,000/-. It is contended that, although the information was found in the electronic devices of the parties during the search, the said information is related to Smt. Ishita Varshney Jain, the petitioner in the present case. The Revenue's claim is made on the strength of the following reasoning, as set out in the affidavit. "It is submitted that the information discovered through the above referred agreement to sell (as found via WhatsApp chat with Sh. Shashi Chawla) is related to Smt. Ishita Varshney Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ishita Varshney Jain, had facilitated property transactions for various individuals, including prominent persons. These transactions often involved payments made partly in cash and partly through cheque, as evidenced by WhatsApp chats and images recovered from his mobile phone." 5. It is apparent from the above, that neither any books of account nor documents, either belonging to the petitioner or containing information pertaining to the petitioner, were found. The fact that an Agreement to Sell between two separate parties has been retrieved from the mobile phone of the husband of the petitioner, does not establish that the information pertains to the petitioner. As noted above, the information is that there was an Agreement to Sell betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
