TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has been allowed in part. The facts of the case are as hereunder: 3. The appellant is a registered partnership firm consisting of 15 partners. The firm is being managed by three partners by name, Irfan Razack, K. Rahman Khan and Sri Sadath Ali Khan. The firm constructed a commercial complex known as "Fifth Avenue" consisting of ground + three floors. The building is consisting of 82 commercial shops. The building was under construction till the end of January, 1993. Different shops are sold by the firm under different sale deeds to several buyers. On January 5, 1993, exercising the powers under section 132 of the Income-tax Act M/s. India Builders Corporation (which is also a partnershi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, after examining the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the Assessing Officer and so also the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that even though the document was seized from the premises of a partner of the appellant-firm-India Builders Corporation, as the document is pertaining to the appellant-firm and that the seizure of the document from the premises of India Builders Corporation has not been denied by the appellant-firm, considering the provisions of section 3(18) of the General Clauses Act and also the presumption attached under section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng partners of the firm ? (2) Whether the presumption attached to section 132(4A) of the Act can be imported to the appellant's case even though the search was not conducted on the premises of the appellant ?" 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 6. It is not in dispute that the premises of Ziaulla Sheriff and his son, Yunus Zia, the partners of the assessee was searched and a computer printout in respect of the sale transactions of the Fifth Avenue was seized from the premises of the India Builders Corporation. It is also not in dispute that Ziaulla Sherifff, his son, Yunus Zia, are the partners of the appellant-firm. Even though the appellant-firm's premises is not searched, when an important docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on an erroneous finding has set aside the well considered order passed by the Assessing Officer. It is no doubt true that the document is seized from India Builders Corporation. As we stated earlier when the seizure of the document is not denied by the partners of the appellant-firm, it is for them to explain to show that such a document is not concerning the business of the appellant. But the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without assigning any valid reasons had erroneously reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is justified in reversing the finding of the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals), bringing the amount of Rs. 2,32,28,173 into tax. Ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y has been brought into tax for the assessment year 1993-94, which in fact is not fully correct. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the Assessing Officer to find out whether Rs. 2,32,28,173 was received by the partners of the appellant-firm during the assessment year 1993-94 or not and based on such finding, the assessment has to be completed. Therefore, it is for the appellant and his partners to explain and produce relevant documents before the Assessing Officer to show that when and how the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,32,28,173 was received by them. If the partners of the appellant-firm are unable to produce any material evidence, then it is ....