9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing of impugned notice order dated 16/06/2023. 3. Any other order/direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the interest of justice." 2. The grievance arose to the petitioner when he received a notice dated 16.06.2023 (Annexure-1) issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1961'). 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed his usual returns declaring an income of Rs. 41,89,700/- for the Assessment Year 2019-20 and was not having any kind of dissatisfaction on the part of the respondent regarding the same. Subsequently, while a search and seizure action was conducted upon one Om Kothari Group on 13.07.2020 by the Investigation Directorate, Jaipur, Rajasthan, the petitioner was served upon the impugned notice dated 16.06.2023 under Section 153C of the Act of 1961, whereby the petitioner was required to file the return of income. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner again filed a return on 03.07.2023. 3.1. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, also sought a satisfaction note of the respondent, which would have been the basis of issuance of the impugned notice, and the said satisfaction note wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 could operate only to the limited ambit of statute, which gave powers to the respondent to operate against 'other person'. 4.5. Learned counsel further submits that the WhatsApp chats in question do not fall within the domain of any of the above and did not provide for any direct financial interaction between the parties in question. 4.6. Learned counsel also submits that the satisfaction note in question is vague and does not mention any kind of basis, so as to warrant any kind of action against the present petitioner. 4.7. While relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar PV Vs. B.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, learned counsel contended that WhatsApp conversion and the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of 1961 would not conform to the parameters laid down in the said precedent laws. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India, (2017) 394 ITR 220 SC. 4.8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel also relied upon the following order/judgments: (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d images of the documents discovered from the phones of the Directors and Key Persons of the Om Kothari Group pertaining to the present petitioner. 5.5. Learned counsel further submits that it is not a case where it can be said that the satisfaction so arrived at was based only on the WhatsApp chats, as the figures appearing in the chats are also appearing in the images of pages of unaccounted cash books maintained by key persons and employees of the Group. 5.6. Learned counsel also submits that while the Chats in question specify the plots which are Plots No.3 & 4 against which cash payment has been received, which is corroborative in nature and thus, it is apparent that the present petitioner-Giriraj Pungalia, Proprietor of M/s. Ratan Industries has purchased the plots No. SP 818-(II)-3 & 818-(II)-4 from the Om Kothari Group. 5.7. Learned counsel further submits that the information in question i.e. the WhatsApp Chats and the images of documents, was of specific properties and specific in nature and did not match the returned income of the assessee. 5.8. Learned counsel also submits that even after receiving the impugned notice, the petitioner has ample opportunities to defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A: Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person : Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of cases in respect of such other person, in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition has been made, which cannot be crossed by the Assessing Officer, and thus, the parameters are in place for connecting a person in the search and seizure in the capacity of 'other person'. 11. In the judgment rendered in Ishita Varshney Jain (supra), as relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court held that "neither any books of account nor documents, either belonging to the petitioner or containing information pertaining to the petitioner, were found". In the said case, the agreement to sell also was between two separate parties and assumptions were vague and erroneous. However, in the present case, it is not the assumptions but the actual plots are determined, and the information pertains to specific plots No. SP 818-(II)-3 & 818-(II)-4, in connection with which sale transaction took place, in pursuance of such information. The value of the properties etc. is also on record. The suggestive values are not the base in the present case. Therefore, the said case law does not apply in the present case. 12. In Vetrivel Minerals ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court is also conscious of the fact that the ambit of Section 153C was not to restrict the proceedings qua 'other person' arising out of Section 153A (search & seizure), but was only to enable invocation thereof, so that in case any connecting evidence which is specific and to the point, corroborated by proper facts, then the escape may not be made possible for such 'other person'. The law and statute however require strict interpretation as if the information is vague, then the same cannot be made part of the sustaining material for such proceedings, which is not so in the present case. 17. This Court has carefully perused the said inspection note which observes that the search & seizure action conducted on Om Kothari Group on 13.07.2020 by the Investigating Directorate reflected that the present assessee purchased the plots No. SP 818-(II)-3 & 818-(II)-4, situated in VKI Area, Jaipur from M/s. Om Metal Infotech Private Limited (a Group Concern of Om Kothari Group) for which significant amounts were paid in cash outside the books of account. 18. The images in the mobiles, laptops and personal computers were specific and statement of one of the employees was also recorded und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
