TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars. 2. The petitioner was working in the State Bank of India in clerical service. The CBI conducted raid on April 4, 2000, at the house of the petitioner and again a raid was conducted on April 10, 2000, to search the bank locker of the petitioner. Several documents were seized from the custody of the petitioner, which disclose that the value of the properties found were much more than his known source of salary income. The petitioner is prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the CBI. The CBI seized all the property documents, which were found in his house. 3. The Income-tax assessing authority issued notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act calling upon the petitioner to file the returns for the periods from 1996....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the business. It is said that his wife is also an Income-tax assessee. The petitioner has not been able to give all the specific details with reference to the documents seized by the CBI. His attempt to obtain documents was in vain. He was not having full information of what are the nature of properties found and what is the explanation needed to be given in respect of the said property. The bank was also not co-operative in furnishing the information. In such constrained situation, the petitioner says that he could not file returns to explain his income and also to explain the income earned by his wife for the years in question. 6. The counsel for the Revenue submits that necessary opportunity was given. The wife of the petitioner be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should not be initiated against you as per provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 within February 27, 2004. Your authorised representative, Shri Ranjit Nath, informed me verbally on February 27, 2004 that since you are not at Guwahati and expected to come back on 13th or 14th of March, 2004, the reply could not be given. On my request for written submission in this regard, he had submitted a written reply in this regard received in this office on March 5, 2004. However, in connection with the assessment proceedings for the above mentioned assessment years in your case, i.e. Assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, certain facts have been gath....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the CBI and authenticity of the said documents was not available ; therefore, the petitioner has been called upon to furnish necessary information. The said averments does substantially corroborate the contention of the petitioner that the documents seized by the CBI and the said documents were out of the control of the petitioner, when the best judgment assessment was made, which is within couple of days after annexure F. The conduct of the petitioner in not filing the appeal and filing a revision may be a technical lapse wrong legal advice. 10. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the substantial documents were out of control of the petitioner at the time when the best judgment assessment was passed but now he has secured ne....