AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bjected to a search and seizure operation on 15.03.2007. An assessment had originally been completed u/s.153A/143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2009. The said assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Cuttack, who had, vide his order dated 26.11.2010 in ITA No.235/09-10, annulled the assessment on the ground that the AO was not competent in law to issue notice u/s.153A(a) of the Act in respect of assessment year 2007-2008, since the search in the case had taken place on 15.03.2007. It was the submission that as the assessment order had become a nullity, what remained was only return filed by the assessee and as the said return had not been processed. A notice u/s.148 of the Act had been issued on the assessee on 17.04.2012 after recording reasons and after getting the approval from the JCIT Range-1, Sambalpur. It was the submission that the facts in the case was that originally land of 1.01 acres at Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar had been allotted to one Shri Srikanta Mishra by the State Government on lease for 99 years in 1981. The said land had been specified for hotel business. On account of the litigation in respect of the said land with the neighbours, said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta Mishra vide letter dated 14.09.2005 .addressed to the Joint Secretary OS), G. A. Deptt., Govt. of Odisha submitted that he would not be able to construct the hotel and meet its day to day expenses and he requested that leasehold interest be transferred in the name of Shri Srinibash Sahoo, the present assessee. ii.) As per registered sale deed dated 18.04.2006, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.75,75,760/- along with registration charges of Rs.18,41,618/- and consent fee of Rs.18,93,940 paid to the state govt. (25% of Rs.75,75,760/-). iii.) A search was carried out at the residential, office and factory premises of Shri Srinibash Sahoo and his group concern Crackers India Alloy Ltd. (CIAL) on 15.03.2007. During the search operations, Shri Srikanta Mishra was also covered and in his statement u/s.132(4) recorded on 15.03.2007, he admitted in reply to question nO.30 that he had initially intimated the assessee namely Shri Srinibash Sahoo that value of plot at Satya Nagar was around Rs.7 crore but his deal with Shri Srinibash Sahoo was finalized at RS.6 crores. He also confessed that some other persons had also approached him regarding this plot but they were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the entities based in Kolkata to invest in Rohini Resorts Private limited which was not doing any business and had only a plot of land in its name. It should be noted that during the course of search, share allotment register of Crackers India Alloys Ltd. (CTAL) was found and it showed that crores of rupees were invested in the shares of CTAL (listed company) from 54 companies at Kolkata through Shri Srinibash Sahoo. The fifteen Kolkata based companies which had invested in Crackers India Alloys Ltd., had also invested Rs.2.90 crores in Rohini Resorts Private limited. Since Shri Srikanta Mishra was the owner of a retail wine shop at Bhubaneswar therefore had no knowledge of these companies at Kolkata. Though investment as share capital in Rohini Resorts Private Limited was made through DDs by fifteen Kolkata based companies but here was no doubt that these companies were merely acting as fronts for Shri Srinibash Sahoo. viii.) Kindly refer to page-14 of the assessment order. All the entries on back side of seized document (page-104 of SM-01) except cash payments of Rs.1,49,95,000/- have been found entered in the books of account and bank accounts of sellers/purchasers.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne for the purposes of making an assessment. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (53 ITR 225) in which it was held that AAC had tremendous powers in disposing of any appeal; that the scope of his powers was co-terminus with that of the ITO; that he can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. Further nothing prevented the Id. CIT(A) from conducting inquiries on his own. c) The Id. CIT(A) has held that there was no evidence on record to show that Shri Srinibash Sahoo was involved with these companies and monies given by these companies was unaccounted money of Shri Srinibash Sahoo. By holding so, the Id. CIT(A) also failed to take cognizance of seized material, statement of Smt. Kalyani Mishra and other circumstantial evidences. The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (69 taxmann.com 407) has held that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order, before him whether or not same have been raised by an assessee before him; and he is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Wing at Kolkata to show that the assessee‟s funds have been used by the Kolkata based corporate entities for making investment in the shares of Rohini Resorts Pvt. Ltd.. It was the further submission that even in the course of search no evidence was found connecting the assessee to the Kolkata based corporate entities. It was also the submission that the assessee has explained the sources of his investments for the purchase of the land as also in the acquisition of the shares of the Rohini Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The investment made by the Kolkata based corporate entities was in the shares of Rohin Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and the entries were in the books of Rohini Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee has got nothing to do with the said entries. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 7. In regard to the cross objection, it was submitted by the ld. AR that he did not wish to press the same. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. It may be mentioned here that the ld. AR of the assessee has also endorsed the same in the file to this effect. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. The fact of the ....