TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,30,50,000 made u/s 69 of the Act. 2. The appellant submits that assessing officer erred in passing the order under section 144 r/w 153C of the Act as the provisions of section 153C are not applicable to his case. 3. The appellant submits that he is a searched person u/s 132 covered by the Panchanama and warrant of authorization and therefore the assessment should have been made on the appellant being a searched person under section 153A of the Act and not under section 153C of the Act 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the name of the appellant in the Panchanama was due to clerical error. 5. The appellant submits that a sworn statement was recorded from the appellant admittedly u/s 132(4) on 27/11/2012 which can be recorded which confirms the fact that a search was conducted in the premises of the appellant u/s 132 of the Act. 6. The appellant submits that the document was seized from the premises of the appellant during the course of search and therefore the assessing officer is not correct in invoking the provisions of section 153C and he should have issued the notice u/s 153A only. 7. The appellant submits that no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to dispute in that Sri Ramgopal has sold the very same property through fraudulent methods and the appellant has filed suits before the Courts and the matter is still pending. 15. The appellant submits that he has not taken possession of the property at all and having denied the source for the amount provided for purchase of the property he has in fact informed the Departmental authorities to sell the said properties and adjust the demands out of sale proceeds of the said properties. 16. The appellant submits that he has no source either to purchase or to pay the taxes demanded. 17. The appellant therefore prays that the assessment made under section 153C may be cancelled as invalid in law and also to delete the addition of Rs 1,30,50,000 made as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in the assessment order and render justice. 2. As is evident, the sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs. 130.50 Lacs as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order. The assessee assails the jurisdiction of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee was a searched person and his statement was also recorded on oath u/s 132(4) and therefore, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order. Undisputedly, the copy of Panchnama was bearing the name of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the name of the assessee as mentioned in Sr. No.(A) of Panchnama appear to be merely a clerical error. The AO and two independent witnesses had signed warrant of authorisation as well as the copy of Panchnama. The Panchnama dated 27-11-2013 was prepared on account of the warrant which was issued in the case of Shri D. Ramgopal only and not in the name of the assessee. Shri D. Ramgopal was the searched person u/s 153A. There was clerical error in recording the Panchnama by mentioning the name of the present assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered as the person being searched without having a warrant in the case of the assessee. The assessee could be considered as a person other than the person as referred to in Sec.153A. The loose sheets and documents were found from the premises of the assessee which was in his possession meaning thereby that the seized material belonged to the assessee. The authorized officer recorded the statement of the assessee u/s 132(4) based on the contents recorded from the material as seized from his residence. The Ld. AO issued n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 27-11-2013. However, the perusal of Panchnama dated 27-11-2013 would show that it has been made against the assessee and not against Shri D. Ramagopal. The Ld. CIT(A) had held the same to be mere clerical error. However, this observation is to be seen in the background of the fact that the impugned material was seized from assessee's premises and his statement was also recorded on oath u/s 132(4) which provide that authorized officer may, during the course of search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceedings under the act. Upon commutative consideration of above stated facts including that fact of seizure of impugned documents from the assessee and statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) from the assessee, the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A) that there was a clerical error in the Panchnama could not be accepted. The provisions of Sec.153C would apply only if the documents are found during search on another assessee. The same is not the....