TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 271AAC(1) of the Act by the 1st Respondent. 4. The Impugned Assessment Order dated 29.12.2022 has been passed in the background of a search conducted at the premises of the "Searched Person" namely M/s.SRS Mining, a Partnership Firm of J.Sekar Reddy on 08.09.2016, 09.12.2016, 10.12.20216 and 12.12.2016. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was issued with the aforesaid Notice under Section 153C of the Act on 24.02.2022. 5. In response to the said Notice, the Petitioner had filed a Return of Income on 23.03.2022, reiterating the Return of Income that was filed earlier on 23.01.2018 under Section 139(1) of the Act. 6. In this case admittedly, during the period in dispute, the Petitioner was a sitting MLA of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and also the Minister of Municipal Administration, Rural Development and Implementation of Special Programs. 7. In the Return of Income filed on 23.01.2018 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, the Petitioner has declared a Gross Total Income of Rs. 4,92,562/- only. The aforesaid Gross Total Income consisted a sum of Rs. 4,44,152/- from "Salary" and Rs. 48,411/- from "Income from other Sources". 8. Though not relevant, at the outset ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 and in W.P.No.16176 of 2021 vide order dated 28.09.2021 in the case of the "Searched Person", namely M/s.SRS Mining, a Partnership Firm. 17. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand submitted that there were sufficient materials available for invoking Section 153C of the Act against the Petitioner and it is, on this basis, Section 153C Notice dated 24.02.2022 was issued to the Petitioner which has resulted in the impugned Orders. 18. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents also drew the attention to Paragraph No.4 of the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P.No.21687 of 2023, which, more or less, refers to the aforesaid decision rendered in the matter. Hence it is prayed that the present Writ Petitions be dismissed. DISCUSSION:- 19. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents. I have also perused the materials available on record. I have also considered the provisions of the Act and the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 20. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber case (referred to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered necessary. In short, the statement was not to be used against the assessee. In this regard, detailed explanation, as to why the cross examination was not applicable in this case, is discussed in the assessment order vide para-No.24 which is as follows: 24. In this regard, it is held that the statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the IT Act are merely corroborative in nature and are merely explaining the nature of the documents seized and entries therein. The addition arises out of the material evidence found in the seized material, wherein the name of the then Minister was found, with the details of the transactions reproduced and discussed in the Para number 11. Hence, there is no requirement for cross-examination. The above stand is supported by the decision of the ITAT Bombay Bench in the case of GTC Industries Ltd Vs. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380. ....." 22. The said Mr.K.Sreenivasalu, the former Director of the M/s.JSR Infra Developers Private Limited had apparently retracted the statement. The said statement has not been solely relied. Even in the case of said "Searched Person" namely M/s.SRS Mining, a Partnership Firm, it is evident that the statement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he stated position that the sworn statements are not going to be used against the writ petitioner as set out in the counter affidavit and as captured in this order elsewhere supra by itself douses the request for cross-examination. In other words, it draws the curtains on the request for cross-examination. 19. If statements are not going to be used against the writ petitioner, it cannot be gainsaid that the persons, who made the sworn statements have to be cross-examined. Therefore, it is not necessary to further dilate into 'NJP' (Natural Justice Principle')." 26. Again the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 10.08.2022 in W.P.Nos.3625, 3635, 3661 and 3673 of 2022 filed by the very same "Searched Person" namely M/s.SRS Mining, a Partnership Firm, held as under:- "86. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and find that the panchanamas issued by the respondents in certain cases were in the names of three individuals and in some cases, it is even in the name of the firm, apart from the three individuals. The material collected pursuant to the search jointly conducted against the three persons and the firm would not require to be de....