TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-2087/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-86/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2088/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-2089/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-2090/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-87/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2091/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-2092/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-2093/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-94/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1866/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-1867/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-1868/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-95/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1869/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-1870/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-1871/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-96/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1872/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-1873/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-1874/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-97/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1875/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-1876/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-1877/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-98/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1878/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-1879/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-1880/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-99/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2094/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-2095/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-2096/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-100/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2097/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-2098/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-2099/DLI/2025 (Stay) In FPA-PBPT-101/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1881/DLI/2025 (Review) MP-PBPT-1882/DLI/2025 (Exem.) MP-PBPT-1883/DLI/2025 (Stay)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/DLI/2025 COD MP-PBPT-1908/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1909/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1910/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-138/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1911/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1912/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1913/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-139/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1914/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1915/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1916/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-140/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1917/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1918/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1919/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-141/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2854/DLI/2025 COD MP-PBPT-1920/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1921/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1922/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-142/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1923/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1924/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1925/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-143/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1926/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1927/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1928/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-144/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1929/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1930/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1931/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-145/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1932/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1933/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1934/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-146/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1935/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1936/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1937/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-147/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1938/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1939/DLI/2025 Exem. MP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... MP-PBPT-1985/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-169/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1986/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1987/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1988/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-170/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1989/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1990/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1991/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-171/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1992/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1993/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1994/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-172/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1995/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1996/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-1997/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-173/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-1998/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-1999/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-2000/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-174/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2157/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-2158/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-2159/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-175/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2001/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-2002/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-2003/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-176/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2004/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-2005/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-2006/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-177/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2007/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-2008/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-2009/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-178/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2010/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-2011/DLI/2025 Exem. MP-PBPT-2012/DLI/2025 Stay In FPA-PBPT-179/DLI/2024, MP-PBPT-2013/DLI/2025 Review MP-PBPT-2014/DLI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating Authority was set aside. It was concluded that the case does not involve benami transaction as defined under the Act of 1988 and therefore there was no reason to provisionally attach the properties belonging to the appellant. 2. The facts of the case were narrated in the impugned order and stated that the appellants pursuant to the scheme framed by the Government of India by the name of "Income Declaration Scheme, 2016" made declaration of possession of 12,857.07 carats of rough diamonds of a value of Rs. 49,42,79,680/- being "undisclosed income" received by way of gift/inheritance and were with the appellant since 1994. The declaration aforesaid was made under section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 and was acknowledged and accepted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The certificate was issued on 07.10.2017 on Form No. 4. The appellant Shashi Kant Chaurasia paid the tax and sur- charges apart from penalty @ of the 45% on the un-disclosed income. He accordingly made the payment of tax of Rs. 22,24,25,856/- in terms of section 184-185 of the Finance Act, 2016. 3. The rough diamonds were subsequently processed through core job workers in Surat and appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment was sufficient to prove flow of cash to route it in the bank account of the firm/individual for future benefit of the beneficial owner. The statement of Yogendra Raj Singhavi has been ignored by the Tribunal on the ground that he retracted his statement, thus could not have been relied upon unless there existed corroborative evidence. If there remains no justification for retraction of the statement, it can be relied upon without corroborative evidence. 9. In view of the above also, the impugned order needs to be reviewed. 10. It was lastly contended that the declaration of un- disclosed income under the scheme of 2016 was not accepted by the Assessing Authority under the Income Tax Act. It was taken out of forgery, thus the declaration followed by a certificate is to be taken as null and void. The prayer was made to cause review on the issues raised above. Findings of the Appellate Tribunal 11. We have considered the submission made by the counsel for the Review Applicant and perused the record. The Review Petition can be taken up and accepted only when a case is made out to show an error on the face of the record or there exist manifest error in passing the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was held there that the words "any other sufficient reason" means "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously", meaning thereby (i) and (ii) (supra). Notably, Chhajju Ram (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in a number of decisions starting with Moran Mar Basselios Catholics v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius. 101. However, with utmost respect, we do not find any of those decisions, which have taken an expansive view, looking at such ground in the manner we propose to look, for recording our concurrence with the view in Chhajju Ram (supra) that has unhesitatingly been followed over the years. If indeed "any other sufficient reason" were to take within its embrace any situation not analogous to "discovery of new matter or evidence" and "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record", we wonder why the legislature chose to keep "any other sufficient reason" immediately after the aforesaid two grounds. If "any other sufficient reason" were to be read independent of the said two grounds, we believe the long line in Rule 1 after clauses (a) to (c) need not have been drafted in the mann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 153 of the Income Tax Act. It was found to be out of fraud and thereby declaration to be null and void. The learned counsel for the review applicant was asked to invite the clause or any para of the scheme which gave jurisdiction to the Assessing Authority to nullify the certificate issued by the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax under the scheme of 2016 followed by a certification and deposit of the tax on the undisclosed income. It was 45% to the amount of un-disclosed income and thereupon when appellant/non-applicant gained income out of further transaction, they were subjected to tax compliances and which have been fulfilled. The counsel for the review applicant could not show authority, vested in the Assessment Authority to nullify the certificate issued by the Principal Commissioner under the Scheme of 2016. It was more so when the valuation of the rough diamond was certified by the Registered Valuer and has not been questioned. In fact, this Tribunal was inclined to make comments on the action of the Assessing Authority to nullify the certificate issued by the Chief Commissioner under the scheme of 2016 but since the matter is very old, we refrained to do so.....