AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction of "Palm Court" Project was submitted to Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, Haryana and subsequently vide their certificate bearing No. 2363 dated 11-5-2000 the requisite Completion Certificate was issued to them. Simultaneously other certificates from Fire Department, Air Port Authority of India etc. were also obtained. Total covered area together with all buildings and structures constructed thereon was at 1,63,838 sq. ft. and open area was at 1,95,000 sq. ft. 3. On 22-8-2001 a search operation under section 132(1) was conducted on DN Taneja Group of cases wherein certain books of account and other documents were found and seized. During the course of search certain papers i.e. page Nos. 23 and 24 of Annexure A-1 were also seized from premises at 7, KG Marg, New Delhi reflecting the name of the assessee-company and certain cash and cheque payments received by the assessee from Dinesh Jain Group. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice under section 158BD read with section 158BC on 27-6-2002. The assessee filed the return on 9-9-2002 declaring NIL income. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire dated 3-12-2002 were issued which read as under :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a third partner Vipin Sharma as well. So each of the three would have had to share one-third loss amounting to Rs. 20,83,500. This adjustment has been made in the accounts of Elite and Dynamic at pages 23 and 24 respectively. Further Tanejas and Dewan have further equally shares the loss of Shri Vipin Sharma equally and this has amounted to Rs. 10,41,500. This adjustment has also been made in the accounts of Elite and Dynamic. It is obvious from the credit of Rs. 31,25,000 given both in the accounts of Elite Promoters Pvt. Ltd. at page 23 and Dynamic Universal Ltd. at page 24 that this loss must have been incurred by Shri Dinesh Jain and his group and since Taneja and Dewans may have been involved as guarantees in the farmhouse deal along with Vipin Sharma, both of them must have agreed to share the loss equally between them including the share of loss to Shri Vipin Sharma. Accordingly, both of them have given an equivalent credit to Dinesh Jain group against the consideration they were likely to receive towards the sale of property at Palm Courts. That is why this adjustment has been made in both the accounts of Elite and Dynamic at pages 23 and 24 respectively. You are req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not pertain to us. On this very issue Directors of the assessee-company were called by the Deputy Director (Inv.) a number of times and their statement recorded clarifying that this document does not pertain to the company. It is further clarified that since the document does not pertain to the assessee-company the subsequent question stated in your questionnaire cannot be answered. The answer to this question, if any, can be given by only those persons who have written this paper. The assessee-company categorically denied to have entered into any transaction with any person in cash. Wherever the assessee-company has made any transaction in respect of its property the same has been properly recorded in the books of account and can be verified as the same are being produced before your goodself as stated above. It was further submitted that, as this document did not pertain to the assessee-company, the figure stated therein for which the question has been asked cannot be answered by the assessee-company. On page 3, para 2 of the questionnaire, your honour has raised a presumption by stating that "It is obvious . . . that the lost must have been incurred by Sh. Dinesh Jain . . . A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce: "4.6 I have gone through the verbal and written arguments advanced by the appellant and also perused the relevant case laws relied upon. The objection raised by the appellant regarding initiation of proceedings under section 158BD and non-recording of "satisfaction" by the Assessing Officer were also considered. Though, in my opinion, the Assessing Officer has complied with the provisions of section 158BD, however, before arriving at any conclusion, it would be appropriate to spell out the law on the subject i.e. the order passed by the Assessing Officer with reference to the language as used in the statute. Accordingly, the perusal of section 158BD was made, which deals with the "undisclosed income of any other person" and reads as under :- 'Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrect, as the satisfaction note has been recorded vide order sheet entry dated 26-7-2002 before issue the notice on 26-7-2002 under section 158BD of the IT Act. Point No. 4 : The assessee has objected that no notice under section 143(2) has been issued to the assessee-company by the Assessing Officer after filing of the return. This contention of the assessee is not correct. The notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were initially issued to the assessee-company along with questionnaire dated 3-12-2002, which remained un-complied with. As such a show-cause notice dated 27-1-2003 was issued on 27-1-2003 for non-compliance of the said notices and asking the assessee as to why penalty under section 271(1)(b) should not be imposed and further a fresh notice under section 143(2) was issued on 27-1-2003. The assessee has himself replied to the said show-cause notice vide his letter dated 3-2-2003. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the contention of the assessee is totally wrong and, assessee's objection deserves to be rejected. Point No. 5 : The assessee has further submitted that assessment was framed without giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee-com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] 251 ITR 625 (Guj.) it was held that in absence of an averment on behalf of the Assessing Officer, about the satisfaction arrived at by the Assessing Officer, the same will not vitiate the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 158BD. 4.11 Besides above, I find that the Assessing Officer vide order sheet entry dated 27-6-2002 i.e. while issuing notice under section 158BD read with section 158BC has duly recorded his reasons for initiating assessment proceedings under section 158BD as under :- 'During search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 conducted at Mr. D.N. Taneja Group of Companies, it was found that M/s. Dynamic Universal Ltd. is also a company promoted by Taneja family. The assessee-company had developed a property in Gurgaon along with M/s. Elite Promoters Pvt. Ltd. After developing the property, the same was sold to a Kanpur Party. Seized material "suggests" that there was part receipt in cash, which is not accounted for any where. Hence, case is picked up under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue necessary notice.' 4.12 Thus, in my considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has fully complied with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p, it was found that M/s. Dynamic Universal (P.) Ltd. has developed a property in Gurgaon in collaboration with M/s. Elite Promoters (P.) Ltd. After developing the property, the same was sold to a Kanpur party. Seized material suggests that the sale proceeds were received partly through cheques and partly in cash. This is the general practice that in property deal the cash transaction is not recorded in the books of account. In order to examine this issue, the case is picked up under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 10. As regards the issue of notice under section 143(2) the CIT(A) observed in para 4.15 that since the block assessment is not made under section 143(3), therefore, the issue of notice under section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer is not mandatory. While the Assessing Officer proceeds to determine the undisclosed income as per the provisions of section 158BC(b), the Assessing Officer may issue notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) as per his discretion. Therefore, non-issue of notice under section 143(2) is inconsequential. This issue now stands covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT and the issue in this case is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24 of Annexure A-1, containing the details of these cash payments is not a dumb document. Rather, it very much belongs to the appellant-company but the appellant in its books of account has not recorded the cash payments reflected therein." 13. The CIT(A) also observed that wrong statements were given by Sh. D.N. Taneja during the course of search operation on 22-8-2001, by Sh. S.K. Dewan, Director of appellant-company and by Sh. Ravinder Taneja, Director of Elite Promoters (P.) Ltd. on 14-7-2003 before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) further observed that Shri D.N. Taneja was the main controlling person of Taneja group including the Palm Court Project, because in all the statements recorded by DDIT (Inv.) on 17-9-2001, 24-9-2001 and by DCIT on 27-5-2003, Shri S.K. Dewan, Director of the assessee-company has admitted that all the deals regarding sale of flats of Palm Court Project were undertaken/settled only by Shri D.N. Taneja. Though initially Shri D.N. Taneja has denied of having any connection with pages 23 to 25 of the Annexure A-1 and with Palm Court Project, however, later on vide his reply dated 6-2-2002 he admitted that this deal was made through him, which is eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Directors of the company, namely, Mr. S.K. Dewan and Mrs. Achala Dewan were recorded on 17-9-2001 and 24-9-2001, in which various questions asked regarding Mr. D.N. Taneja and the working of the company were replied and there was nothing adverse coming out of the statements; that after the receipt of notice under section 158BD the assessee-company has been asking for the details of the documents and the statements relating to the block period on the basis of which notice under section 158BD has been issued but the Assessing Officer provided a photocopy of the document, which is unsigned computer print found at the time of search on 22-8-2001, on the basis of which the notice was issued. The learned counsel contended that this is a plain paper on which certain computer print are there but it is without any signature or handwriting of the person who has prepared this paper; that the assessee-company filed a detailed reply dated 3-2-2003 categorically stating that the document did not pertain to the assessee; that the Assessing Officer issued summons to Shri Dinesh Jain who has bought the property from the assessee-company and in his statement recorded on 24-3-2003 he categori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng an allegation against a person he should be provided relevant information so that he be aware of the precise charge and reply to the same. He further contended that in this case the onus was on Mr. D.N. Taneja to explain the document and this could have been shifted to the assessee only on Mr. Taneja making a statement that this document pertained to the assessee-company or coming out with any other explanation imputing the assessee-company. In the absence of any such statement or allegation by Mr. Taneja the presumption has to be drawn against Mr. Taneja and not against the assessee. He referred to two decisions of the Delhi High Court - Amity Hotel (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 142 Taxman 160 and Janki Exports International v. UOI [2005] 145 Taxman 82. 18. On merit, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 5,50,36,030, which consists of two parts, Rs. 5,34,29,200 on the basis of allegation that cash was received over and above the cheques and Rs. 16,06,830 on account of interest paid by Shri Dinesh Jain for delayed payment. The addition has been made on the basis of a piece of paper found at the premises of Mr. Taneja.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s paper. On the face of it, this is a dumb document and at best one can make out that some calculation of interest has been done but with no reference to any property purchase or sale. It is further submitted that the reference of one Mr. Bipin Sharma and of the date 15-8-2000, the use of word "seems", then of "it can be seen", then of "they must be in deal of purchase of this farmhouse", then stating that 'the deal did not materialize'"may be due to Shri Dinesh Jain not liking this farmhouse or may be he has got a better deal", then stating that "dispute started with regard to who should show how much loss", and that "the deal must have got stuck on 15th August, 2000" are all imaginations as if the Assessing Officer without knowing as to whether he was evaluating the evidence or writing a story without any source of information or any person, any other material showing these actions or facts. Further the words used "this theory gets weight from the following facts" establishes that the Assessing Officer did not have any material whatsoever to substantiate his allegation. Again the statement that the balance of Rs. 73,04,200 has been shown to be receivable is contrary to the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. CIT [1999] 69 ITD 336-472 (Mum.); Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.); Atul Kumar Jain v. Dy. CIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786; Asstt. CIT v. Shri Radheyshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal.); Addl. ITO v. T. Mudduveerappa Sons [1993] 45 ITD (Bang.) 12; CIT v. Nirmal H. Phopalia [2003] 262 ITR 522 (Bom.); Monga Metals (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 67 TTJ (All.) 247^3; Rama Traders v. First ITO [1988] 25 ITD 599 (Pat.) (TM); Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 80 ITD 13 (Delhi); S.P. Goyal's case (supra); Asstt. CIT v. G.S. Bhatia [1997] 59 TTJ (Mum.) 91; Smt. K.C. Agnes's case (supra); Srinivasa Ultrasound Scanning Centre v. Asstt. CIT [1998] 61 TTJ (Bang.) 619^4; Amar Natvarlal v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 60 ITD 560 ; Pushkar Narain v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388^5 (All.) and Satnam Singh Chhabra's case (supra). 21. It was further submitted that sales instances given by the CIT(A) were never confronted to the assessee and therefore cannot be the basis for confirming the additions. 22. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, referred to the order of CIT(A) and relied upon his findings. With regard to satisfaction of Assessing Officer und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company has a collaboration agreement with M/s. Elite Promoters (P.) Ltd. a group company of Taneja Group, there is nothing abnormal in finding of paper relating to the assessee at the premises of Sh. D.N. Taneja. Further it is also clear from the fact that total cheque payment as per books is matching with what is mentioned in loose paper that whatever is written on this paper is written by a person having exact information regarding receipt of payments with respect of sale of prop- erty at Palm Court, Gurgaon. The learned DR also referred to the date "15-8-2000" on this paper and submitted that on perusal of this paper it seems that the assessee, M/s. Elite Promoters (P.) Ltd. and Shri Vipin Sharma were dealing with Shri Dinesh Jain for sale of some Farm House and incurred a total loss of Rs. 62.5 lakhs. He also submitted that wrong statements were given by Sh. D.N. Taneja during the course of search operation on 22-8-2001, by Sh. S.K. Dewan, Director of assessee-company and Shri Ravinder Taneja, Director of Elite Promoters (P.) Ltd. on 14-7-2003 before the Assessing Officer which is evident from the facts as stated in the assessment order. He further contended that the seized pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if the officer has initiated action either under section 132 or under section 132A of the Act in respect of the person. It is section 158BD that calls upon the Assessing Officer to be satisfied himself before initiating it. From the records of that case, the Delhi High Court observed that it appears from the appreciation report that in almost all the cases, what issues needs to be investigated are indicated. Over and above, it was also indicated "some of it is verifiable from our record, but for the rest an indepth scrutiny is required to detect concealment". It was further said "Keeping in view the above observations and preliminary examination of the seized record, proceedings under section 158BD of the IT Act are hereby initiated against the assessee-company, to carry out detailed investigation". In that context, the Delhi High Court held that satisfaction is required to be preceded by the investigation and not that the investigation is required to be preceded by the satisfaction. Reference to Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Rushil Industries Ltd. v. Harsh Prakash [2001] 251 ITR 608 ^1 and in the case of Priya Blue Industries (P) Ltd v. Jt. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 615 ^2 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dr. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19^1 , the court directed the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons recorded for arriving at a satisfaction to the petitioner within a reasonable time upon the petitioner filing a return as required by the impugned notice. Here also, the judgment is not an authority for recording of reasons but is an authority for supplying the reasons for arriving at a satisfaction. 27. We may refer to in this connection the provisions of section 271(1) wherein also a similar language is used for levying penalty upon satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It reads, "if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person. . . . (b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142. . . . (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty". Under that section a case came up before five judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 , the Supreme Court again observed that clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 says that action for taking proceedings for imposition of penalty arises if the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also to be shown that the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner was so satisfied in the course of proceedings under the Act. In that case, the notice for levy of penalty was issued subsequent to the making of assessment order and in that context the Supreme Court opined that this fact would not show that there was no satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer during the assessment proceedings that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It was observed that what is contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 271 is that the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner should have been satisfied in the course of proceedings under the Act regarding the matters mentioned in the clauses of that section. It is not, however, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. (supra) wherein the appeal was admitted on the following inter alia two questions :- "2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar, had lawful satisfaction as mentioned in section 158BD before handing over the books of account and documents to the Assessing Officer of the appellant ? 2A. Whether such satisfaction is legally required to be recorded in writing?" 31. The court answered these two questions as under :- "As regards the second question, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient satisfaction by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar, for handing over the books of account and documents to the Assessing Officer of the appellant. This matter has been dealt with in paragraph 22 of the Tribunal's order where it has been held that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar, was satisfied that the undisclosed income mentioned in the seized documents pertains to the appellant. We see no error in this finding. There is nothing in section 158BD that this satisfaction must be recorded in writing. It may be noted that wherever the Income-tax Act required recording of reasons before reaching a satisfaction it has specifically provided to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....price by the two abovenamed persons having connection with Royal Enterprises. Certain disclosures were made by them with regard to the nature of the transactions they were engaged in. This disclosure in the search operations against the two abovenamed persons was a relevant material for forming of an opinion and satisfaction that the petitioner has not truly disclosed his income and the action under section 158BD was, therefore, called for." 33. Another Bench of Gujarat High Court has taken the similar view in the case of Priya Blue Industries P. Ltd. (supra) wherein it is observed as under:- "Initiation of proceedings under section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against another person is not a separate and independent proceeding for which a separate jurisdictional fact has to be established. The proceedings under section 158BD against a person other than the person raided are part of the proceedings which commence with search under section 132 and culminate in proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. If at any stage, the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belonged to some other person, similar notice is to be issued to such person also. The abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 55,762 15-9-2000 Cash Rs. 45,03,000 1 Month Rs. 46,906 22-9-2000 Cash Rs. 15,24,000 37 days Rs. 19,310 28-9-2000 Cash Rs. 44,03,500 43 days Rs. 64,846 4-12-2000 Cash Rs. 25,00,000 110 days Rs. 94,178 5-12-2000 Cash Rs. 22,00,000 111 days Rs. 83,630 19-12-2000 Cash Rs. 4,00,000 125 days Rs. 17,123 13-9-2000 Cash Rs. 1,20,00,000 23 days Rs. 1,15,068 25-10-2000 Cash Rs. 1,00,00,000 70 days Rs. 2,39,726 30-10-2000 Cash Rs. 20,00,000 75 days Rs. 51,369 23-11-2000 Cash Rs. 80,00,000 99 days Rs. 2,71,232 26-11-2000 Cash Rs. 25,00,000 Balance 277 days Rs. 6,92,898 Rs. 7,01,25,300 Rs. 73,04,200 Rs. 7,74,29,500 28-9-2000 (-) Rs. 28,90,076 (Security lying with Dynamic) 234 days (-) 2,34,600 Net Amount 16,06,830 Add : House Tax paid by Dynamic ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee over and above the cheque amounts incorporated in the books of the assessee and also in the said documents. This is claimed to be dumb document without having any evidentiary value. The document/sheet of paper does contain the details of cheques received and these were found recorded in the books of the two assessees and that may give an impression that document pertain to the assessee concerns or that if part of the transaction recorded in the documents are found to be true, the other part must also be true and in any case the documents connect the assessees with it. 39. Various statements were recorded. These are of Shri Devki Nandan Taneja; Shri Ravinder Taneja; S.K. Dewan; Dinesh Jain etc. Shri Devki Nandan Taneja during the course of search on 22-8-2001 stated that Palm Court Project was developed by M/s. Elite Promoters. The land was owned by M/s. Universal Dynamic Ltd. of M/s. Dewans; that the sharing was in equal proportion. Sh. Kamal Bhawna and Shri Rattan Chand Taneja are beneficiaries of this project; that the estimate cost of this project was about 9 crores and they were expecting to sell at for 10 to 11 crores; that page Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of seized Ann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Ravinder Taneja and they have stated that the said papers does not pertain to them. Mr. Rattan Chand has also denied any knowledge in respect of the said printouts since none of the printouts were available when he had gone for open heart surgery. It is thus evident that none of the print outs were within the knowledge of the management of the company and none have been found either from their custody or control. It is thus stated that these print outs are planted as the same have not been obtained from our computers/printer, which have been seized from our office/residence and are still in your custody. It is submitted that the fact of the matter is that we have executed a Collaboration Agreement with Dynamic Universal Ltd. for the development of their land at Gurgaon. The Collaboration Agreement was approved by Appropriate Authority. As per the Collaboration Agreement, M/s. Dynamic Universal Ltd. are the registered owner of the land at Gurgaon and M/s. Elite Promoters Pvt. Ltd. were to bear the total cost of construction on the entire project and in lieu of this both M/s. Dynamic Universal Ltd. and M/s. Elite Promoters Pvt. Ltd. were entitled to the sale proceeds in the ratio ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to any of his concern. He also denied any dispute mentioned in the paper regarding any farm house and stated that they have not sold any farm house to him or any of his concern. Regarding depositing of cheques he stated that these cheques were received by me on the condition that the same will be deposited only after reconfirmation and were deposited when he got reconfirmation. 41. Statement of Sh. Dinesh Jain was recorded under section 131 at New Delhi in the case of Elite Promoters P. Ltd., M/s. Sona International Ltd., Shakti Overseas (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Dynamic Universal (P.) Ltd., on 24-3-2003 and he stated he had purchased some portion of property at Gurgaon from M/s. Elite Promoters (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Dynamic Universal (P.) Ltd. That he had also purchased some portion of property at B-38, Conn. Place, New Delhi from M/s. Sona International and Shakti Overseas (P.) Ltd. He was shown page Nos. 4-7 of Annexure A-1, which included transaction mainly include cash as well as cheque payments but he stated that the papers he was seeing for the 1st time and this statement of account shows that payments by cheque have been made through Vyasya Bank Ltd. In this connection it was st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been properly recorded in their books of account and they had not paid Rs. 8 lakhs as H T for Dinesh Jain. He stated that before imputing this document the authenticity of the document has to be tested and that if somebody writes some figures and it is found from his premises which does not belong to him. There has to be some person who has to come forward and say that this document pertains to me. It was not that on the basis of piece of paper to explain the figures written by person whose identity is not known (unsigned and computer generated sheet) if the identity of the person is known than he would like to examine such person to find out the circumstances under which the same was written. 43. As per the special provisions for making block assessment under Chapter XIV-B in the case of search and seizure, section 158BC(b) requiring an Assessing Officer to proceed to determine the income of the assessee enrops the provisions of sections 142, 143(2), 143(3), 144 and 145 so far as they may apply. Section 142 contains the provisions of enquiry before assessment. Section 143(2) deals with furnishing of material to support the claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om various racing clubs on the basis of winning tickets presented by the assessee. The dispute was, were they really winning of the appellant from the races? In that context it was observed that "this raises the question whether the apparent can be considered as the real". A reference was made to the earlier Supreme Court decision in the case of Durga Prasad More (supra) at pages 545 and 547 and it is observed that "As laid down by this Court, the apparent must be considered the real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities". The Chairman of the Settlement Commission in that case in his dissenting opinion has laid emphasis on the fact that the assessee has produced evidence in support of the credit in the form of certificate from the racing clubs giving the particulars of the crossed cheques for payment of the amounts for winning of jackpots, etc. The Chairman has rejected the contention regarding lack of expertise in respect of the appellant and ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne. It cannot be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts has been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts are income of the appellant from other sources is not based on evidence." 47. On consideration of rival submissions we notice that the commercial flats at the ground floor and 3rd floor, sold to Dinesh Jain group were found to be at the price lower than the price of other commercial flats on the same floor or other floors. The rates mentioned in Memorandum of Understanding filed in respect of booking advances received from M/s. Antriksh Land Promoters P. Ltd. M/s. Shree Jaganath Securities Pvt. Ltd. both at the rate of 1,400 per sq.ft. that too for 5th floor, M/s. Lal Construction Pvt. Ltd. at the rate of 1,150 per sq.ft. for 7th floor and M/s. Chandra Advertising Pvt. Ltd. at the rate of 1,250 per sq.ft. for 6th floor as against Rs. 1,000 per sq.ft. for ground floor and Rs. 900 per sq.ft. for 3rd floor in the case of sales to Dinesh Jain. It is when the commercial value of property situated at ground floor in any commercial complex/Malls being best suited for operating a show room or a shop can even be twice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in to Sh. D.N. Taneja requesting him to resolve the long pending issues related to purchase of Palm Court Project; and (4) that the reference of Sh. Vipin Sharma, who was involved in materializing all the deal with Dinesh Jain group, has also been found on page No. 25 of Annexure A-1 seized from the residence of Sh. D.N. Taneja. Thus, establishing the fact that Sh. D.N. Taneja was the main controlling person of this project." 49. That wrong statements were also given by Sh. Ravinder Taneja, Director of appellant-company on 14-7-2003 before the Assessing Officer is evident from the fact that he has given incorrect answers to certain questions which are apparently contradictory to material on record, namely "(1) Sh. Ravinder Taneja vide Q.No. 6 of his statement before the Assessing Officer has stated that "I do not know any person named Vipin Sharma" whereas almost all the "Agreement to sell" and "sale deeds" executed in favour of Dinesh Jain group were duly witnessed by Sh. Vipin Sharma S/o. Sh. Trilok Nath. Further, on examining the Agreement to Sell, Sh. Vipin Sharma was also found having his office in the name of M/s. SVS Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 807, Prakash Deep, 7, Tolstoy M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the fact that not even a single cheque issued in compliance to Paragraph 2 of page 4 of these Agreements to Sell i.e. Rs. 2,00,000 was to be given at the time of signing this Agreement, was deposited into the appellant's Bank account in the month of April, 2000 to August, 2000. The earliest date of depositing the cheque was 4-9-2000. Further, all Form No. 34A, needing clearance for sale of property were either filed on a date later than 15-8-2000 or issued by the Income Tax Department in the month of September, 2000. Therefore, it seems that the preparation of Agreements to sell dated 10th and 11th April, 2000 was an arranged affair and the agreements might have actually been executed on a later date and thus, confirming that the date appearing on page Nos. 23 and 24, i.e. 15-8-2000, was the date on which both the parties agreed to purchase the properties at ground and 3rd floor of Palm Court Project. 52. We do not find any answer to the above mentioned issues and the conclusion of CIT(A) is without giving proper opportunity of being heard and explaining the material relied upon by him, namely, why the selling price of ground floor commercial flats sold to Dinesh Jain group ....