TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 1030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO holding cash of Rs. 22,35,000 to be belonging to the appellant even though the documentary evidences furnished categorically indicate that the said money actually belongs to the various concerns of Labh Group controlled by the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO determining undisclosed income at Rs. 22,35,000 in spite of the fact that the cash seized and retained under s. 132A was Rs. 19,13,000 only. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO holding cash of Rs. 2,15,000 seized from Smt. Jayaben Govindbhai Patel as undisclosed income of the appellant even though no such finding to that effect was given in her assessment made under s. 158BC. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO not granting credit of the retained cash of Rs. 19,13,000 and accrued interest thereon while issuing the demand notice on the block assessment. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manager of Labh Construction Group cases. It was also reported in the newspaper that in that particular robbery case, six persons were arrested by the police authority. Interestingly, it is to be aware that the original complain was lodged by Shri Harin K. Shah for the robbery of Rs. 5,000 only but subsequently after recovery of huge cash of Rs. 18.20 lacs (correct amount of Rs. 19,13,000) from the seven persons, he changed his statement that robbery was not of Rs. 5,000 but of Rs. 22,35,000 which were belonging to the group cases of Labh Construction & Industries Ltd. (b) The abovementioned contradictory statements of the complainant Shri Harin K. Shah led a belief in the minds of IT authorities that the amount recovered by the police officers was unaccounted requiring action under s. 132A of the IT Act, 1961. The IT authorities accordingly issued a warrant of authorisation under s. 132A on 30th Aug., 1995 and served upon the police authority for the seizure of cash of Rs. 19,13,000 lying in their custody. The police authorities however objected to hand over the said cash on the ground that cash obtained by them had become 'Muddamal' and could not be handed over t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The above cash of Rs. 19,13,000 was recovered by the police authority from the seven persons on various date(s) which are summarized as under to understand the real facts of the case. Sl. No. Name of person S/Shri Cash recovered on Total 28-8-1995 29-8-1995 4-9-1995 1. Nilesh G. Dhobi 7,00,000 ' ' 7,00,000 2. Bhavin R. Modi 1,05,000 ' ' 1,05,000 3. Jagruti P. Raval 1,85,000 ' 45,000 2,30,000 4. Swetal Rameshchandra 2,60,000 ' 48,000 3,08,000 5. Pragnesh M. Kothari 55,000 ' ' 55,000 6. Mukesh K. Dhobi 3,00,000 ' ' 3,00,000 7. Jayaben G. Patel 1,25,000 ' 2,15,000 Total 16,05,000 2,15,000 93,000 19,13,000 (f) It is worthwhile to mention here that the ownership of the entire cash of Rs. 19,13,000 was claimed by the group cases of Labh Construction & Industries Ltd. on the plea that the amount of Rs. 22,35,000 was given by those concerns to Shri Harin K. Shah on 14th Aug., 1995 out of the cash balance available with the amount of Rs. 26,7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Rameshchandra As against above orders passed by my predecessor, Shri Jay Prakash Mangtani in the capacity of managing director of Labh Construction & Inds. Ltd. as also in other concerns filed a Special Civil Application No. 2178 of 1999 before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on 26th March, 1999. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decided the petition in the favour of claimant i.e. the group cases of Labh Construction & Inds. Ltd. with a direction to finalise the block assessments in all seven cases afresh after granting a proper opportunity of being heard to the claimant. In view of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's order dt. 12th Aug., 1999, the fresh assessment orders under s. 158BC have been finalized by me on 17th April, 2003 determining total income at Rs. nil in the cases of four assessees referred to above. While finalizing the above four cases it has been concluded by me that the entire seized money of Rs. 19,13,000 belonged to Shri Jay Prakash J. Mangtani. Since Shri Jay Prakash J. Mangtani is being assessed by you, necessary action under s. 158BD may kindly be taken at your end....." 4. The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been shown to be made on 24th July, 1995, she was allotted a plot after a gap of six years on 8th Dec., 2001. The AO also noted from the perusal of the cash book of Labh Construction Ltd. that in no other case, except in the above case, cash was received by Labh Construction Ltd. and, therefore, the claim of the assessee regarding cash received from the aforesaid parties remained unsubstantiated. The AO also observed that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid to Arun Shukla also remained unsubstantiated as he could not be contacted during the assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the AO also discussed about the F.I.R. which was initially lodged on 15th Aug., 1995 in which theft of Rs. 5,000 has been shown. According to the AO in respect of the theft that recoveries of huge amounts were made by the police authorities, neither Harin K. Shah nor any member of Labh Group has made any statement regarding the actual amount of cash which was stolen. According to the AO, only after thirteen days, when full recovery has been made, Harin K. Shah revised the F.I.R. in which Jaiprakash Mangtani and Shri Harshad Waghela claimed that the amount belonged to Labh Group but the assessee failed to explain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id merely for the reason that no notice under s. 143(2) of the Act was issued or, was issued after twelve months from the date of filing of return of income and, therefore, the assessee cannot take the plea that notice was issued beyond the prescribed time-limit. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. There is no dispute that return of income was filed on 30th June, 2003 in response to the notice issued under s. 158BD of the Act. A copy of the notice under s. 143(2) of the Act is available at p. 4 of the assessee's paper book. On perusal of this notice, it is clear that the same was issued on 5th April, 2005 and admittedly was served upon the assessee on 6th April, 2005. In our opinion, keeping in view the judicial pronouncements, the notice issued under s. 143(2) has not been served upon the assessee within the prescribed period of one year and, therefore, the assessment order framed under s. 158BD is null and void and is liable to be quashed. 9. In Asstt. CIT vs. R.P. Singh (supra), the Tribunal held as under : "20. In view of the above authority, the Tribunal Delhi Bench in t....