TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....premises of Gopal Bhadruka. 4. During the course of search and seizure operations, it came to light that Gopal had obtained a General Power of Attorney to develop the Secunderabad Cantonment property belonging to two persons. The firm had developed 32 plots and had disposed them of to various persons. The search and seizure operation revealed that the sale consideration as per the sale deed did not tally with the actual payments made by the purchasers. In effect, there was a suppression of sale receipts. It appeared from a scrutiny of eight sale deeds that on-money was paid to Ahura Holdings by the vendees. 5. The statement of Gopal was recorded on more than one occasion, and in reply to certain questions, he confirmed the receipt of on-money but claimed that it was received in his hands and in the hands of Avadesh. Neither Ahura Holdings nor the other partners had anything to do with the receipt of on-money. 6. The Revenue also examined the purchasers of eight plots in respect of whom there was evidence of payment of on-money. Three of these persons admitted payment of on-money, while five persons denied the payment. There was no evidence with regard to payment of on-mone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer as well as the appellate authority failed to consider that the partners of Ahura Holdings had categorically stated that on-money was received by them and not by Ahura Holdings. In this regard, reference was made to the statement made by the other partners of the firm that on-money was not received by Ahura Holdings. 14. In our opinion, for the reasons mentioned below, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the contentions of the assessees and we are also of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. 15. There is no dispute that Sections 153A, 153B and 153C were inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.6.2003 in Chapter XIV thereof. These sections are applicable to search operations or requisitions made after 31.5.2003. Simultaneously, the Finance Act also inserted Section 158BI in Chapter XIV-B of the Act. 16. The provisions of Section 153A, Section 153C and Section 158BI of the Act, as they stood at the relevant time, read as follows:- "153-A. Assessment in case of search or requisition .-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue such other person notice and assess or reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153-A: 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 132-A in the second proviso to Section 153-A 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. (2) Where books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned as referred to in sub-section (1) has or have been received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person after the due date for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under Section 132 or requisition is made under Section 132-A and in respect of such assessment year- (a) no return of income has been furnished by such other person and no notice under sub-section (1) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the interpretation of Sections 153A/153C of the Act is quite clear, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. We may in this context recall the words of the Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (dead) (2001) 251 ITR 84 wherein it was said: "A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law." 20. It was contended by learned counsel for the assessees that there was no evidence before the Assessing Officer to conclude that on-money was received by Ahura Holdings in respect of all the sale transactions. It was submitted that there may have been material with regard to eight such transactions but that does not mean that the same script was played out for all the transactions. We cannot agree. There was adequate material before the Assessing Officer in the form of eight sale deeds and in the form of replies given by Gopal to questions posed to him with regard to receipt of on-money to enable the Assessing Officer to come to an informed conclusion in this regard. Appreciation of the available material is within the domain of the Assessing Officer and this does not lead to any subst....