2005 (9) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) award costs of this petition to the petitioner." Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pan masala including wah gutkha in the name of Ashok Enterprises. The petitioner's business and residential premises were searched by the income-tax authorities. At the same time the business premises of Rajeev Bansal, proprietor of M/s. S.B. Agencies, Nayaganj, Kanpur was also searched, who is alleged to be a bulk purchaser of wah gutkha of the petitioner. It appears that certain books of account and documents have been seized. A perusal of the assessment ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 10,80,896 has been made on the basis of seized material annexures 'SB-103, SB-104 and SB-105', holding that Shri Rajiv Bansal has made unaccounted sales of Rs. 93,99,100 of wah gutkha. It has further been held that Shri Rajiv Bansal was making purchase of wah gutkha from Shri Dinesh Chand Jain only since he is dealing exclusively in wah gutkha. It is further noticed that as per letter dated March 20,1998, Shri Rajiv Bansal has stated the entire purchases whether relating to accounted for or unaccounted sales (including zero errors/irregularise) were made from M/s. Ashoka Agencies who were the manufacturer of wah brand plain and tobacco mixed pan masala. In view of this, I have reason to believe that Shri Dinesh Chand Jain, Prop. M/s. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC) ; Smt. Jamila Ansari v. Income-tax Department reported in [1997] 225 ITR 490 (All); CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh reported in [1965] 56 ITR 234 (SC) ; AIR 1965 SC 1421 ; Manno Lal Kedar Nath v. Union of India reported in [1978] UPTC 563; ITC Ltd. v. Superintendent of Commercial Taxes reported in [2000] 119 STC 530 (SC) in the case of Foramer v. CIT reported in [2001] 247 ITR 436 (All); CIT v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah reported in [1971] 82 ITR 367 (SC); G.R. Constructions v. ITO reported in [1982] 135 ITR 586 (Guj); Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO reported in [1978] 114 ITR 404 (AP). Learned standing counsel submitted that under article 226 of the Constitution of India in writ jurisdiction, this court cannot examine th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ciple of law that in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot look into the sufficiency of the material on the basis of which a belief has been formed and notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued. This court can only examine whether there was any material and whether the material is relevant to form the belief of escaped income, (vide ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 271 ITR 113 (All); [2005] UPTC 53 (All)). In the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO reported in [1999] 236 ITR 34, the apex court held that in writ jurisdiction, the court can only consider whether there was a prima facie case for reassessment and suff....