TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng up a residential colony at Gurgaon and persuaded him to remit money in the name of respondent No.7 and one Dharam Pal for the purpose of obtaining the requisite permission from the office of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. According to the petitioner, a total sum of Rs.5,20,04,800 was paid at the instance of respondents Nos. 6 and 7. Out of this, a sum of Rs.3,65,17,800 was sent in the name of respondent No.7 and a sum of Rs.1,54,87,000 was sent in the name of Dharam Pal through bank drafts. ' The house of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 situated at Faridabad was searched by the authorities of the Income-tax Department on May 15, 1999, under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, lithe Act"). In the course of search, a number of papers and documents concerning movable and immovable assets including various bank accounts were seized. It was also revealed that respondent No.7 was holding bank account No. 1030-142816-100 with Times Bank, Faridabad Branch, which she did not disclose to the authorities of the Income-tax Department. On coming to know about the search conducted at the premises of respondents Nos. 6 and 7, the petitioner filed a complaint again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in relation to the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were summarily dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Faridabad (respondent No.4), without giving opportunity of hearing to its representative. The petitioner has challenged the order of assessment as well as order dated February I, 2002, vide which respondent No.4 dismissed the appeals filed by it by contending that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 committed a grave illegality by treating the money lying in the account of respondent No.7 as her income despite the fact that in the criminal case, the same has been proved to be belonging to it. It has challenged the appellate order passed by respondent No.4 on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. In the written statement filed by respondent No.5 on behalf of himself and respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India because it has already filed a civil suit in the High Court of Judicature at Chennai for recovery of Rs.9,31,73,287 including the amount of Rs.5,20,04,800. It has been further averred that the writ pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndustries Ltd.-Rs.18.88 lakhs; M/s. Suncity Projects Ltd.-Rs.18.76 lakhs; etc. Further an addition of Rs.120 lakhs was made out of total addition of Rs.1,34,40,000 on account of unexplained investment in FDRs (para. 16 of the assessment order). This addition was made on the basis of papers seized during search at the residence of respondent No. 7 and in the absence of any explanation coming forth from the assessee, i.e., respondent No.7. 26. It is not correct that the amount of Rs.5,20,04,800 has been treated as income of Sabita Behl as discussed above in para. 25. Further in respect of Rs.38,03,511.50 lying in the bank account of respondent No.7, no specific addition has been made in respect of this amount but only an addition of Rs.30 lakhs on estimate basis has been made (para. 21 of assessment order) as peak credit of thousands of entries could not be ascertained out of various bank accounts. Further an addition of Rs.120 lakhs has been made in respect of unexplained investments in FDRs on the basis of seized documents (para. 16 of the assessment order). 29. and 30. As stated above, against paras. 25 and 26, the specific amount of Rs.38,03,511.50 has not been treated as incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of assessment. Shri H.L. Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgment dated November 2, 2001, the movable and immovable properties recovered during the course of search under section 132 of the Act cannot be treated as assets of respondent No.7 and respondent No.5 committed a grave illegality by treating the same as income of respondent No.7 for the purpose of assessment under section 158BC(c) read with section 144 of the Act. Shri Sibal further argued that order annexure P 13 is liable to be declared as nullity because respondent No.4 did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's representative before dismissing the appeal filed against the order of assessment. Shri A.S. Tewatia, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 5 laid emphasis on the fact that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit against respondents Nos. 6 and 7 and others for recovery of the amount allegedly paid to them and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He referred to the averments contained in the plaint (annexure P 12/A) t....