TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....36/PUN.2018, recalled the earlier order. This is how, these appeals have again come up for hearing. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2002-03, are that a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out in the case of one Shri Shriram Hiralal Soni and his family on 29-07-2003. Shri Shriram H. Soni and his brother were engaged in money lending business and also acting as finance brokers. Both the Soni brothers had shown interest income from loans and advances to various borrowers during the F.Y. 1997-98 and even in earlier years. They were also engaged in trading of shares. During the course of search carried out at Shri Shriram H. Soni, certain incriminating documents in the form of blank promissory notes (duly signed by borrowers), blank undated cheques (duly signed by borrowers with the amount of loan mentioned etc.) were found. Shri Shriram H. Soni had adopted the methodology of giving cash loans normally for 90 days after deducting the interest amount (varying from 1.5% to 2% per month) and the brokerage amount (between 0.25% to 0.50% per month). Thus, as against the loan of Rs. 1 lakh, the borrower received only a sum of Rs. 94,750/- after deduction o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for the A.Yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 is similar. In other words, the AO held that the assessee paid interest and brokerage on loan of Rs. 10 lakhs received by the assessee from Shri Shriram H. Soni and such amount of interest for both the years was calculated by AO at Rs. 2,10,000/- each, which was added to the respective total income of the relevant years. The assessee remained unsuccessful before the learned first appellate authority. That is how, the matter has come up before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The whole case of the AO is that the two cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs each issued by the assessee were found from the premises of Shri Shriram H. Soni along with promissory notes which evidenced that he took loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from Shri Shriram H. Soni on which interest and brokerage of Rs. 1,57,500/-, Rs. 2,10,000/- and Rs. 2,10,000/- were paid during the three assessment years under consideration out of unexplained income. We have gone through the copies of two cheques, which constitute the bedrock of the additions. A copy of first cheque for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs has been placed at page 34 of the paper book, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by a firm has been discontinued or where a firm is dissolved, the Assessing Officer shall make an assessment of the total income of the firm as if no such discontinuance or dissolution had taken place, and all the provisions of this Act, including the provisions relating to the levy of a penalty or any other sum chargeable under any provision of this Act, shall apply, so far as may be, to such assessment.' Once it is found as an admitted position that the entity taking loan from Shri Shriram H. Soni was M/s. K.R. Boob & Sons, a partnership firm, we fail to comprehend as to how the addition on account of interest and brokerage thereon could be made in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the addition in respect of any undisclosed income from the transaction of payment of interest and brokerage from undisclosed sources, if any, should have been considered only in the hands of M/s. K.R. Boob & Sons, a partnership firm and not the assessee. Since the instant additions have been made in the hands of the assessee, an individual, a hitherto partner of the firm M/s. K.R. Boob & Sons, we set-aside the same and orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son. The expression "immediately after completion of assessment u/s.158BC" as used in this judgment came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sudhir Dhingra (2015) 373 ITR 555 (Delhi) in which satisfaction was recorded within 5 months from the date of assessment order of the persons searched. The Hon'ble Court held that recording of such satisfaction within 5 months from the date of assessment order of the person searched, was valid. Once again, similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bharat Bhushan Jain (2015) 370 ITR 695 (Delhi). In that case, the satisfaction notes were recorded between 10 months to one and one half year. The Hon'ble High Court held that the notices issued u/s.158BD were invalid for want of late recording of satisfaction. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Jitendra H. Modi (HUF) (2018) 403 ITR 110 (Guj.) in which case, a delay ranging between 10 months to 1 ½ years was held to be unduly delayed. Resultantly, the appeals were held to have been rightly dismissed. If we go through the ratio of the above referred ....