Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Prakash Chandra Jain Vs Akshay Kabra

    Uploaded by

    Narendra Ajmera
    23 views51 pages

    Original Title

    Prakash Chandra Jain vs Akshay Kabra

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    23 views51 pages

    Prakash Chandra Jain Vs Akshay Kabra

    Uploaded by

    Narendra Ajmera

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 51
    Flag: “B" RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR CIVIL CASES p.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. oF 2024 IN 1.8, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO- 1592 OF 2024 CASE TITLE Petitioner PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN Versus ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKSHAY KABRA, DEPUTY COMM ww Respondent CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR oe 7a. [NATURE OF CASE TiviL CONTEMPT PETITION \ te. Civil contempt Petition, Civil | Misc. Appeal (other than M.A.C.T. 1 matter), civil First Appeal, Civil | Revision, civil Second Appeal civil civil \ Transfer Application, Reference, civil Recrimination | petition, Civil Review, Custom | ejection Matters, Excise Tax Matters, — Cross \ civil, Arbitration | Civil Miscellaneous \ \application, Civil Leave to Appeal, \ | company Matters, Civil Pauper \ potcation, Matrimonial Reference, | Special Appeal Civil, Testamentary } eeee, Execution First Appeal, | \ \ L | Execution Second Appeal, etc) 3, Tater Pertaining to Subject Matter | WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF) THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2024 | PASSED BY HON'BLE HIGH | COURT IN D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1592 OF 2024 | UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA | Appeal, appeal, Objection ‘Application, it ja) Details of Lower Court 7 Case No. Name of Courtand | Cae 28 (srgriantetitn Name) DP Tous” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. OF 2024 IN D.B, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO, 1592 OF 2024 PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN va. PETITIONER VERSUS AKSHAY KABRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR .., RESPONDENT HINDEX:: SNo. | Particulars PAGE NOS. [ From | To 1. | Synopsis A A 2. | Contempt Petition Pe ies 3. Affidavit in support of Contempt Petition mea (ae DOCUMENTS : 7. ANNEXURE-Ci: Certified copy of order dated 31.01.2024] j, | passed by Hon'ble High Court. ii.) ANNEXURE-C2: Copy of letter dated 14.02.2024 filed by the| petitioner. 3 a7 ili, | ANNEXURE-C3: Copy of order dated 27.02.2024 passed by| ; | the Respondent. 8 he 4. | Affidavit in support of Doct PP uments alia 5. [Registered Address 6. | Vakalatnamah COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. OF 2024 IN D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1592 OF 2024 PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN «+» PETITIONER VERSUS. AKSHAY KABRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JAIPUR «+» RESPONDENT BRIEF SYNOPSIS That the petitioner had filed a‘ Civil Writ Petition which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1592/2024 before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur challenging therein notices dated 01.02.2023 issued u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 and the speaking order dated 22.01.2024. That since the objections raised by the petitioner were not decided by the Assessing Officer, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 31.01.2024 was pleased to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh. That the petitioner filed letter dated 14.02.2024 to the Respondent reiterating the earlier objection letter dated 16.01.2024. That an opportunity of hearing was granted by the Respondent and the petitioner personally appeared and reiterated the legal objections and also furnished: copies of judgments referred by the petitioner. That the Respondent passed order dated 27.02.2024, however, surprisingly, only 4 of the legal: objections have been considered and 3 objections have not been given considered at all. That by wilfully flouting the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Hon’‘ble High Court the Respondent has committed violation of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the petitioner has been left with no other alternate remedy which is efficaciously available except to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of this Contempt Petition. Hence this Contempt Petition pllebi Siddharth Ranka/Ashok Kumar MG SHE. Igbal/ Saurav Harsh/Shivangi Mewal/Apeksha Bapna/ Rohan Chatter/Ashok Kumar Bansal Advocates IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. /2024 IN D.B, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1592/2024 PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS SON OF LATE SHRI KIRAN CHAND JAIN RESIDENT OF S-3, JYOTI NAGAR EXTENSION, BEHIND AMROOD BAGH, JAIPUR-302005. ..-Petitioner VERSUS AKSHAY KABRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JAIPUR HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT ROOM NO.408, 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN NIDHI, LIC BUILDING, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR. --Respondent D.B.CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 2(b) AND SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971. AND IN THE MATTERS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND GAUTAM RA J JAIN oat capsones RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT SENCH JAIPUR IN THE MATTER OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF DECISION ARRIVED AT BY THE DIVISION BENCH CONSISTING HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI ON DATED 31.01.2024 IN D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1592/2024. AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPER DIRECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE HON’BLE COURT AND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE RESPONDENT OFFICIAL TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS: The Humble Petitioner above named most respectfully submits the present Contempt Petition as under: 1, That the petitioner being an assessee was subject to issuance of notices dated 01.02.2023 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 by the Assessing Officer against which legal objections were raised vide letter dated 16.01.2024 but unfortunately it was par sAIN iv HONER e ae oe BENCH cu) A URSTHAN EUR disposed-off inadequately by the Assessing Officer through the speaking order dated 22.01.2024 against which a writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court thereby assailing the impugned notices dated 01.02.2023 & impugned speaking order dated 22.01.2024. The writ petition came to be decided by this Hon'ble Court after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 31.01.2024 in the following terms: 8. Admittedly the Assessing Officer has falled to decide the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer with regard to issuance of the notice to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Act of 1961. The Assessing Officer has also failed to decide the Issue raised by the petitioner regarding monetary limit for issuance of notice under Section 153C. 9. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while deciding the objection raised by the petitioner before him. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 22.01.2024 is set aside. — 11. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide all the objections afresh raised by the petitioner within a period of one month after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Certified copy of order dated 31.01.2024 is enclosed herewith and is marked as Annexure-C1. et AM AUITAM OT Ose Ne er NO ne “ ANAS That the petitioner reiterated legal objections raised earlier vide its letter dated 14.02.2024 raising 7 legal issues for the consideration and decision thereof by the Respondent which could briefly be surmised as below: A. _ Incorrect facts referred in the satisfaction note. B. _ Notices under section 153C are without Jurisdiction. C. Notices under section 153C is barred by Limitation for AY. 2015-16 & 2016-17. D. Applicability of % Completion Method in-case of buyer. E. Satisfaction Note is Illegal. F, Loose Papers is not Books of Accounts. G. Deaf & Dumb Document. H. Opportunity of Cross Examination. Copy of letter dated 14.02.2024 is enclosed herewith and is marked as Annexure-C2. That a personal hearing was granted by the Respondent on 19.02.2024 and in compliance the petitioner personally appeared and reiterated the aforesaid legal objections and also submitted copies of relevant judgements arrived at by the Hon'ble High Courts/Hon’ble Supreme Court and which were relied upon by the petitioner in the objection letter dated 14.02.2024 and also highlighting the proposition of law laid down, therefore, it was too easy for the respondent even without making much labour to churn the facts of the law. It GAUTAM AAJ JAIN Tee GGMMALAIONER uy oe was a different matter that there could have been a different proposition taken by the respondent thereby arriving to a decision but unfortunately the respondent have failed to consider the same in as much as certain points has not been touched at all inspite of the fact that a specific direction was given by this Hon‘ble High Court to decide all the issues and objections afresh and specifically the objection that notices under section 153C are without Jurisdiction. The respondent have thereby disposed-off the objections which were uploaded on the website vide its order dated 27.02.2024. Copy of order dated 27.02.2024 is enclosed herewith and is marked as Annexure-C3. 4. The on perusal of the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Respondent it is apparent that the respondent has failed to give an eye to the directions of this Hon’ble Court which were simple in nature and would admit no other interpretation. A perusal of order dated 27.02.2024 would go to show that out of seven legal objections raised, only 4 have been considered and 3 objections have not been given an eye what to say of the consideration. It is also a matter of concern that even the simple language of the statute have not been gone through what to tell of the discussion on it. The decision means the adjudication of a point or issue 7 AIN TAM RAIS. OA Sart ca SS en ASTHAN AIG! a JAPUR raised, discussed on the basis of the facts and law and thereafter coming to a conclusion. 5. That the respondent despite the specific directions of the Hon'ble Court failed to decide the matter while considering the 4 issues raised vide letter dated 14.02.2024 in accordance with the law and at-least ought to have decided the same. 6. That the facts even in respect of a document of agreement which was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur have not been considered and has been ignored. It is submitted that the document that is the agreement placed on record would have the clinching effect so as to nip whole of the proceedings at that time and without wasting the precious public time so also the precious judicial time of.this Hon’ble High Court. It is submitted that the subject should not unnecessarily put to harassment in terms of time and money. 7. That the action of the Respondent is also a flagrant violation of the direction given by this Hon'ble Court and have to be a concern by this Hon‘ble Court for the purpose of exercising the power under Article 215 of the constitution of India while having the power exercised under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 since each and every word in the form of Qe JAIN GAUTAM che el nIASTHAN IASTHAN JAIPUR direction given not only carries a meaning but have to be complied with meticulously. 8. That the brevity of the order passed by the judicial courts specially by the High Courts are required to be complied with in terms of letter and spirit and in case if any doubt persist, the clarification was wanting. In the present matter the direction was so simple which cannot admit two interpretations. 9. The Respondent has willfully, deliberately and consciously committed Contempt of Court by not complying with the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The it is obligation & duty of the Respondent to comply with the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court in letter and in spirit. The conduct of Respondent reflects utter disobedience and disregard towards the order passed by the Hon‘ble High Court. The conduct of the Respondent reeks of high-handed & casual approach. 10, That since the directions issued in the order dated 31.01.2024 have been flagrantly violated which may be termed to be a violation wilfully may therefore could not be allowed to persist and in any case if it is found that the mistake or decision arrived that by the respondent was not ye AS JAIN SIONER : TAM @AU OM ‘OATH CO! ‘\ GH RAJASTHAN EUR wilful the proper direction can still be Issued while exercising the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India which empowers this Hon'ble Court to direct to the respondent to again give a chance to rectify the mistake wilfully or otherwise in the interest of justice failing which the action could further be initiated as is required under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of indta read with section 2(b), 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass such other orders which are inconsonance with the law and to have the dignity of the orders of this Hon’ble court and in favour of the ailing petitioner. PRAYER It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to Issue the notice against the responded so as to know his stand/ explanation or justification so as to not complied with the directions of this Hon'ble court dated 31.01.2024, allow the contempt to be purged and if found necessary direct to comply with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in letter and in spirit failing which to have the appropriate action for not compliance with the orders as is required and envisaged under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and pass such other orders which are found in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner. Mi com ayQaTHAN HUGE YOUR LORDSHIPS' HUMBLE PETITIONER ey, THROUGH COUNSELS wire (idl Siddharth Ranka/Ashok Kumar Gupta/Muzaffar Iqbal/ Saurav Harsh/Shivangi Mewal/Apeksha Bapna/ Rohan Chatter/Ashok Kumar Bansal Advocates Mob. No. 9829293149 Email: advsiddharthranka@gmail.com NOTES: 1, That no such Contempt petition has been filed prior to it before this Hon'ble Court. 2. That the contempt petition has been typed by my private steno in my office. 3. That the Extra sets will be submitted within prescribed time. 4. That since the pie papers are readily not available, hence typed on stout papers. 5. That the jurisdiction lies in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. JAIPUR (He DATED: ___ March 2024 a a COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER AM RAS JAIN GAUTAN. asioneR ATH CONMINS TT BENCH : NIGH S anscTHan HIG 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. /2024 IN D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1592/2024 PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN «Petitioner Versus AKSHAY KABRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JAIPUR .-Respondent AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CONTEMPT PETITION 1, Prakash Chandra Jain, s/o of Late Shri Kiran Chand Jain, aged about 74 Years, resident of S-3, Jyoti Nagar Extension, Behind Amrood Bagh, Jaipur 302005 do hereby take oath and state as under: 1. That 1 am the Petitioner in the present contempt petition and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and am therefore entitled to sign and: swear this Affidavit in support thereof. 2. That the annexed contempt petition has been prepared / drafted by the counsels under my instructions, I have read over the contents thereof and understood the same. 3. That the contents of the contempt petition are true and correct to my personal knowledge. a we oy 30 ee VE IN I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify, on oath that the contents of this affidavit in Para No. 1 to 3 are true and correct to best of my personal knowledge. Nothing material has been concealed thereof and no part of it is false. SO HELP ME GOD. eno VY od Map 2024 : Prakash chandie; edn DEPONENTA She Keren Shame edn yy TPR lee Sele yy JAIN GAI Re wut COMMISSIONER g man ‘COURT BENCH SANPUR es | Pa IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21, 265 OF THE v\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR L D. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. | OF 2024 PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS SON OF LATE SHRI KIRAN CHAND JAIN RESIDENT OF S-3, JYOTI NAGAR EXTENSION, BEHIND AMROOD BAGH, JAIPUR 302005 sesese PETITIONER Versus 1, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE = 1, JAIPUR HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT ROOM NO. 416, 4™ FLOOR, JEEVAN NIDHI, LIC BUILDING, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT SIDHNATH BHAWAN, JYOTI NAGAR SCHEME, LAL KOTHI SCHEME, BEHIND NEW VIDHANSABHA, JANPATH, JAIPUR 302015 sess RESPONDENTS we IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA fe AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND IN THE MATTER OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 01.02.2023 U/S. 153C OF THE ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-2016 TO 2021-2022 AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER DISPOSING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.01.2024 RAISIN ey (2024:RJ-IP:5124-DB] iF HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN re BENCH AT JAIPUR mae | sai D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1592/2024 mite Prakash Chandra Jain Son Of Late Shri Kiran Chand Jain, Aged About 83 Years, Resident Of S-3, Jyoti Nagar Extension, Behind Amrood Bagh, Jaipur 302005 ---Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (1), Jaipur Having Its Address At Sidhnath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur 302015 Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Bapna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sidharth Bapna, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Judgment 31/01/2024 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 01.02.2023, issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the pio aft waren is, [Act of 1961’) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 to 2021-2022 as i well as the order dated 22.01.2024, whereby the objections j Oy. submitted by the petitioner were rejected by the Assessing Officer. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly rejected the Ge) (2024:RJ-IP-5124-DB] (20f 3) [cw-1592/2024] objections submitted by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction to issue notice to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed as he failed to decide the issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner specifically in his objection. 4, Learned counsel further submitted that even the Assessing Officer has failed to decide the issue regarding monetary limits for issuance of notice under Section 153C as well-as to give opportunity of hearing. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the request for cross-examination of the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- department has opposed the writ petition. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly the Assessing Officer has failed to decide the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer with regard to issuance of the notice to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Act of 1961. The Assessing Officer has also failed to decide the issue raised by the petitioner regarding monetary limit for issuance of notice under Section 153C. 9. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while deciding the objection raised by the petitioner before him. Gu (2024:RJ-P:5124-DB] (30f3) [cw-1592/2024] 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 22.01.2024 is set aside, 11. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide all the objections afresh raised by the petitioner within a period of one month after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. =A eS . a a at (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J SAURABH /33, e) 16 ANNEXURE C/2 14.02.2024 To, pciT Central Circle-1, Jaipur Sub: Legal Objection in relation to notices issued u/s 153C of the Act for the AY 2015-2016 to 2021-2022. Ref.: In the matter of Prakash Chandra Jain, Jaipur. PAN: AAUPJ9874F Sir, We are in receipt of satisfaction note and the show cause notice dated 28.01.2024 and your letter dated 13.02.2024 fixed for 19.02.2024. On perusal of satisfaction note and the show cause notice, we are raising legal objections towards initiation of afore-said illegal proceedings against the assessee as follows: i. Correct Factual Position; 1.1, Here we would like to state that factually, the assessee and his son Mr. Kapil Jain jointly had entered into a property transaction having equal ratio in the project ‘PALLACIA’ situated at P. No. A-2, Near Revenue Building, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur on dated 05/03/2013 through booking/ application form by depositing a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- for Apartment No. G-41 having Super Area 2220 sq. ft. for total consideration of Rs. 2,33,50,000/- later on, this deal has been registered through registered agreement for sale on dated 01/07/2019 (copy already supplied by the assessee earlier). It is also notable that complete payments were made through RTGS/Account payee cheques/NEFT therefore in such transaction nothing is to hide. Nal GAUTAM RAJ JAIN ‘OATH COMMISHONER AJasTHEN RIGH COURT BENC! MPUR 425 1.3, its 222, 2.3. Qe 17 2 Further it is also states that not a single penny has been paid to the builder in cash hence complete transaction is recorded and all amount as paid to the builder comes from recorded and disclosed sources. The allegation as per your show cause notice and satisfaction note is that the assessee has made total payment of Rs. 2,75,00,000/-, and total payment made by the assessee is Rs. 2,33,50,000/-, hence, alleged escapement, if at all should be Rs. 41,50,000/- and not Rs. 55,00,000/-. Further since, assessee’s share is only 50%, the alleged escaped income qua the assessee at best would be Rs. 20,75,000/-. Notices u/s 153C are Without Jurisdiction; The subjected proceedings for AY 2015-16 to 2021-22 are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction in view of section 153C(3) of the Act. For ready reference, section 153C(3) of the Act is reproduced as hereunder: (3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the Ist day of April, 2021 The reference, search year in reference of the ‘other person’ is the year in which the date of receiving the the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. For ready reference, 1 Proviso to section 153C(1) of the Act is reproduced as hereunder: Provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person However, it is apparent that the search material has been handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer during A.Y. 2023-2024, 24, 25. 18 3 i.e., at the time of issuance of notice u/s. 153C of the Act, hence, the proceedings, if any, ought to have been initiated u/s. 148 of the Act and not u/s. 153C of the Act, since the search year qua the assessee will be A.Y. 2023-2024 and as per section 153C(3) of the Act, no notice could have been issued after 01.04.2021 under the said provision. That it is apparent that you have presumed the ‘search year’ to be A.Y, 2021-2022, i.e., the year in which the search was carried out at the premises of OM Kothari Group and not the year in which the incriminating documents were received by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jasjit Singh 2022 (10) TMI 572 has clarified as to which year would be ‘search year’ in case of ‘other person’ in reference to section 153C of the Act and accordingly notices could have been issued for which assessment years, as under: Assessment u/s 153C and 153A - date referred under proviso to Section 153(1) - date with reference to which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment of any assessment year - assessees contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their A.Os - Revenue urged that the date (relatable to the period for which six years returns were to be filed by the assessee) was to be from the date when the search and seizure proceedings were conducted, in respect of the main assessee u/s 132 - HELD THAT:- As on a plain interpretation of Section 153C(1) that the Parliamentary intent to enact the provise was to cater not merely to the question of abatement but also with regard to the date from which the six year period was to be reckoned, in respect of which the returns were to be filed by the third party (whose premises are not searched and in respect of whom the specific provision u/s 153-C was enacted. The %— ARAT samt aan ge TgeNe crane 2.6, 2 19 4 revenue argued that the proviso [to Section 153(c)(1)] is confined in its application to the question of abatement. This Court is of the opinion that the revenue's argument is insubstantial and without merit. It is quite plausible that without the kind of interpretation which SSP Aviation [2012 (4) TMI 335 - Delhi High Court] adopted, the A.O. seized of the materials - of the search party, u/s 132 - would take his own time to forward the papers and materials belonging to the third party, to the concerned A.0. In that event if the date would virtually "relate back” as is sought to be contended by the revenue, (to the date of the seizure), the prejudice caused to the third party, who would be drawn into proceedings as it were unwittingly (and in many cases have no concern with it at all), is dis-proportionate. For instance, if the papers are in fact assigned u/s 153-C after a period of four years, the third party assessee’s prejudice is writ large as it would have to virtually preserve the records for at latest 10 years which is not the requirement in lav. Such disastrous and harsh consequences cannot be attributed to Parliament, On the other hand, 2 plain reading of Section 153-C supports the interpretation which this Court adopts. Appeal dismissed. Hence, complete proceeding is liable to be declared as null and void- ab-initio. Notice u/s 153C is barred by Limitation for A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17: Without being prejudiced with our aforementioned submissions and without admission of the so-called allegations made against the assessee, it is submitted that the notices issued u/s. 153C of the Act should be dropped on the ground of limitation for the A.Y. 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 That the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No, 2/2018 dated 15.02.2018 explained the rationale for amendments made to the Finance Act, 2017, In reference of period for which extended period h 20 5 after 6 years and upto 10 years could be invoked u/s. 153A and 153C of the Act it was stated as hereunder: 80. Rationalisation of provisions of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and consequential amendment to section 153A and 153C. 80.4 However, in order to protect the interest of the revenue in cases where tangible evidence(s) are found during a search or seizure operation (including section 132A cases) and the same is represented in the form of undisclosed investment in any asset, section 153A of the Income-tax Act relating to search assessments has been amended to provide that notice under the said section can be issued for an assessment year or years beyond the sixth assessment year already provided up to the tenth assessment year if- (i) the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more in one year or in aggregate in the relevant four assessment years (falling beyond the sixth year); (ii) such income escaping assessment is represented in the form of asset; (iii) the income escaping assessment or part thereof relates to such year or years. 80.5 Applicability: The amended provisions of section 153A of the Income-tax Act shall apply where search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act is initiated or requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act is made on or after the ist day of April, 2017. 80.6 Section 153C of the Income-tax Act has also been amended to provide a reference to the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in section 153A of the Income-tax Act. 80.7 Applicability: These amendments take effect from Ist April, 2017. M RATIAIN eM SSONER RAIART AN NIGH COURT yNUR 21 6 3.3. That the period of limitation and extended period of limitation as per section 153C read with 4" proviso to section 153A of the Act, then the proceedings initiated against the assessee beyond 6 years is barred by limitation, which shall be clear from the following table: AM | Year Remarks ~ 2023-2024 2022-2023 | 2021-2022 2020-2021 | 0 7 2 a: | 2019-2020 | 4 | 5 6 7 | Search Year / Notice u/s. 153C issued 2018-2019 2017-2018 2016-17 201 Barred by limitation if alleged escapement of | az | 3.4. Without admission of the so-called allegations made against the 8 | income is less than Rs. 50.00 lacs. assessee, the impugned show cause notice dated 28.01.2024 for the first time has disclosed the alleged escaped income of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 as per show cause notice would be as hereunder: Alleged Escaped | AY. Incremental PCM Income 22.39% 1231450 [9.58% ~~ 526900 1.99% | -109450— | 2018-19 | 70.02% 8.30% | 456500 : [2017-18 | 61.72% 2.38% ‘| 130900 (2016-17 -| 59.34% [ «4.16% =| 228800 2015-16 | 55.18% 55.18% | 3034900 | Total 5500000 Ww 3.5. 3.6. Bi: 3.8, 22 x That cumulative allegedly escaped income (though not admitted) would be Rs. 55,00,000/- out of which for afore-said for A.Y. 2015- 2016 & 2016-2017 would be Rs. 32,63,700/- [3034900+228800) which is less than Rs. 50,00 lacs, hence, the proceedings for the A.Y. 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 have wrongly been invoked against the assessee and the allegation of Rs. 32,63,700/- ought to be suo-motu dropped out of allegation of Rs. 55,00,000/- as computed hereinabove. Further since, petitioners share is only 50%, appropriate relief ought to have been given to the assessee. Without admission of the so-called allegations made against the assessee, the alleged escaped income qua the assessee as submitted hereinabove at best would be 50%*[27500000-23350000] = Rs. 20,75,000/- for A.Y, 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 ought to be taken as hereunder: Alleged Escaped | | | Incremental PCM income | 2021-22 | 100.00% 22.39% 464592.50 | 2020-21 | 77.61% 9.58% 198785 | 2019-20 | 68.03% | =1.99% | -41292.50 2018-19 | 70.02% 8.30% 172225 | 2017-18 | 61.72% 2.38% 749385 2016-17 | 59.34% 4.16% | 86320 2015-16 | 55.18% | 55.18% 1 1144985 ta 2075000) ‘That cumulative allegedly escaped income (though not admitted) would be Rs. 20,75,000/- out of which for afore-said for A.Y. 2015- 2016 & 2016-2017 would be Rs. 12,31,305/- [1144985+86320] which is less than Rs, 50.00 lacs, hence, the proceedings for the A.Y. 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 have wrongly been invoked against the assessee and the allegation of Rs. 12,31,305/- ought to be suo-motu dropped out of Rs. 20,75,000/- computed hereinabove. Further reliance in this regard is placed upon we I oth Le OR racer tone JASTRAN YT eUR | 23 = Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015) 11 TMI 19 wherein The AO of the searched persons recorded a “Satisfaction Note’ on 8th September, 2010 to the effect that the documents seized and the data contained in the hard disk belonged to the Assessee and, hence, Section 153C was invokable. On the aforesaid basis, proceedings were initiated under Section 153C and a notice dated 8th September, 2010 for the AYs 2003- 04 to 2008-09 was issued to the Assessee, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold and observe: In the case of a searched person the AO of the searched person assumes possession of seized assets/documents on search of the Assessee; the seized assets/documents belonging to a person other than a searched person come into possession of the AO of that person only after the AO of the searched person is satisfied that the assets/documents do not belong to the searched person Thus, the date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05 were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act and the AO had no Jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee’s income for that year. + Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT v. Raunak Infrastructure Ltd. (2022) 9 TMI 1518 was pleased to hold and observe: Tribunal has noted that the AO received the materials from the AO of the searched person on 2nd August, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal held that the assessments for the years 2009-10 and 2010- 11 could not have been subjected to assessment proceedings under Section 153C(1) of the Act with regard to as to how this year period should be calculated. Learned Tribunal rightly took note of the decision in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd.[2012 (4) we AY JAIN TAM zi BAG oN SONEE c savasTHal 24 9 TMI 335 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein held in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date. The jurisdictional issue has been decided by the Tribunal taking note of the admitted factual position that the assessee’s Assessing Officer received the materials from the Assessing Officer of searched person only on 2nd August, 2016. if that be the case, the assessment for the year 2010-11 could not have been subjected to proceedings under Section 153C{1) of the Act. + Hon’ble Dethi High Court in PCIT v. RL Allied Industries (2016) 2 TMI 277 has held: Validity of assessment u/s 153 C - Held that:~ Jn the present case, there is no doubt that it was only on 24th March 2009 that the AO of the Assessee received the documents seized and it was on that date a notice under Section 153C (1) was issued and served upon the Assessee. Consequently, this Court finds no legal error in the conclusion of the ITAT that notice under Section 153C (1) could not have been issued for AYs 2001- 02 and 2002-03. - Decided in favour of assessee. + Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of DCIT v. Sandhya Sharma 2024 (1) TMI 1072 has held Validity of assessment u/s 153C - Period of limitation - Date of recording of satisfaction - calculation of six assessment years - whether CIT(A) is correct in holding that assessment made for assessment year 2013-14 is invalid as 6 previous assessment years from the year of search has to be reckoned from the date when the books of accounts or seized documents were handed Rr 25 10 over to the Assessing Officer or when the satisfaction was recorded? HELD THAT:- We are guided by the judgment of RRJ Securities Ltd, [2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT] proviso to Section 153C(1) of the Act expressly indicates that reference to the date of initiation of search for the purposes of second proviso to Section 153A shall be construed as a reference to the date on which valuable assets or documents are received by the AO of an Assessee (other than a searched person). Thus, by virtue of the second proviso to section 153A of the Act, the assessments/reassessments that were pending on the date of receiving such assets, books of accounts or documents would abate - date on which the AO of the person other than the one searched assumes the possession of the seized assets would be the relevant date for applying the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, accept the contention that in any view of the matter, assessment for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05 were outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act and the AQ had no jurisdiction to make an assessment of the Assessee's income for that year. Also see Jasjit Singh case [2023 (10) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT] as held that in the case of the other person, which in the present case is the petitioner herein, such date will be the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisition by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person. In the case of the other person, the question of pendency and abatement of the proceedings of assessment or reassessment to the six assessment years will be examined with reference to such date Thus we have no hesitation to hold that the Assessments made for AY. 2013-14 u/s. 153C consequent to the satisfaction note recorded on 26.03.2021 (A.Y. 2021-22) is beyond the time limit 11 | prescribed and hence, treated as void ab initio. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 3.9. Hence, complete proceedings for A.Y. 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 are | liable to be declared as null and void-ab-initio. 4. Applicability of % completion method: 4.1, The alleged show cause notice dated 28.01.2024 is proposing addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on the basis | of percentage (%) completion method for the period from A.Y. 2015- 2016 to A.Y, 2021-2022. It clearly shows that the there is complete absence of information whatsoever with the revenue as to when was the alleged on-money was paid and to whom it was paid, etc 4.2. If the searched persons have accepted the receipt of so-called on- money then where is the basis to adopt percentage (%) completion method in the hands of the buyer. What link it has with the payment | of so-called on-money. 4,3. The theory of percentage (%) completion method is applicable in the | hands of the seller / builder and not in the hands of the customer. 4.4, The application of the afore-said percentage (%) completion method fortifies the submission of the assessee that there is no evidence what-so-ever available with the department forget incriminating material on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated against the assessee. 4.5. Here we would like to draw your kind attention about the so-called incriminating material and Registered Sale Agreement, where at page no. 5 of such agreement it is clearly mentioned that assessee & his son had booked the questioned property on 05.03.2013 by submitting application form to the seller party which pertains to the AY 2013-14 therefore even if alleged on-money payment is construed as per market parlance, then though not admitted, the questioned transaction would have taken place in the AY 2013-14 and not in the afore-said years as mentioned by your good-self. & | sans | R ‘AM we NUT own hg NO Sieh OY ANASTHAN ypUR 4.6. 5.2. 27 12 Similarly if we observe the incriminating material, it is headed by ‘Details as on 17.04.2013" (nothing else is mentioned anywhere in such sheet about the date of transaction), which does not indicate the date of transaction rather it just refers to ‘date of recording’ on such sheet hence date of transaction as mentioned in Reaistered sale agreement give strong sense as compare to recorded date as mentioned on so called incriminating material which is deaf and dumb paper. There is nothing in the statement of the searched party about the so-called date of payment of on-money. Resultant in view of limitation period of maximum 6 years in case of income escaped is below Rs. 50 lakh the questioned transaction is time barred transaction and revenue is not entitled to issue the Notice u/s 153C of the Act for making reassessment of such transaction Satisfaction Note is illegal: Satisfaction Note of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer dated 01.02.2023 as well as of the searched person Assessing Officer dated 23.01.2023 is copy pasted without even changing of comma full stop, therefore satisfaction note is drawn in mechanical manner and without application of mind hence unsustainable in the eyes of law. Further, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under Section 153C of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings Loose Papers is not books of accounts: It is evident that the income that has escaped assessment and notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were solely issued based on loose sheets and documents which are termed as ‘diaries’ found during the search. AS JAIN GAUTAM hone URE sett eat Rr WeRR 6.2. 6.3 28 13 The applicability of Section 69A of the Act arises only when the principles laid down under Section 68 of the Act are satisfied. Section 68 states that there must be books of accounts or any books with credit entry, The said Act reads thus: Section 68: Cash credits. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous years and the assessee offers no explanations about nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the assessing officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410), has held: “16. To appreciate the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties it will be necessary at this stage to refer to the material provisions of the Act. Section 3 declares that a fact a relevant to another when it is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of the Act relating to the relevancy of facts; and those provisions are to be found in Section 6 to 55 appearing in Chapter It, Section 5, with which Chapter II opens, expressly provides that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and the facts declared relevant in the aforesaid section, and of no others. Section 34 of the Act reads as under:~ "34, Entries in books of account when relevant - Entries in book of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.” 17. From a plain reading of the Section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in 2 book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above Section J JAIN AM AUT roundgionsh {HIGH was ANPUR URT BENCH 29 14 it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence, still, the statement made therein shal! not along be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second part speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with which we are concerned, fulfil the requirements of the above section so as to be admissible in evidence and if this question is answered in the affirmative then only its probative value need be assessed. 18. "Book” ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as ‘book' for they can be easily detached and replaced, In dealing with the work ‘book' appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram vs, Dayaram [AIR 1914 Nagpur 44], a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed:- “In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to the moveable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a 00k... think the term “book” in 5.34 aforesaid may properly’ be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. It is easier however to say what is not a ook for the purposes of S. 34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets RATIAIN EEAUTAM THOneR 4 QATH CON CQURT BEN ewan HGH JASTHAN HIGH 15 | of paper in whatever quantity, though filled up with one | continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of 5.34.” | 6.4. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 69A of the Act, which reads thus: 69A. Unexplained money, etc. Where in any financial year the assessee /s found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable | article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, | Jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him Js not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 6.5. The lack of corroborative evidence to show how the loose sheets found at the search of OM Kothari group are connected to the Respondents herein, or their occupation, is evident from the panchanama provided by the Assessing officer. 6.6. The entire allegation is made out on the basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit and scope of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. 6.7. Applying the above tests, it must be held that loose sheets of papers are not books of accounts. 6.8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause and Others V. Union of India (2017) 11 SCC 731, at paragraphs 278 to 282 of the judgment, has observed thus: "278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shukla case has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed by same is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case y IAIN AAUTAM BC oer 8 aur cone Ser BENCH 31 16 also. This court has considered the entries in Jain Hawala Diaries, note books and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form | of "books of accounts” and has held that such entries in loose | papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that only where the entries are made in the books of accounts regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible. 279, It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla case as to value of entries in the books of account, that such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. It has been held that even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability. 280. This court has further laid down in V.C. Shukla that meaning of account book would be spiral note book/pad but not loose sheets. The following extract being relevant is quoted herein below: (SCC pp.423-27, paras 14 and 20) "14. In setting aside the order of the trial court, the High Court accepted the contention of the respondents that the documents were not admissible in evidence under Section 34 with the following words: "70. ...an account presupposes the existence of two persons such as a seller and a purchaser, creditor and debtor, Admittedly, the alleged diaries in the present case are not records of the entries arising out of a contract. They do not contain the debts and credits. They can at the most be described as 2 memorandum kept by a person for his own benefit which will enable him to look into the same whenever the need arised to do for his future purpose. Admittedly the said diaries were not being maintained on day-to day basis in the course of 32 17 business. There is no mention of the dates on which the alleged payment were made. In fact the entries there in are on monthly basis. Even the names of the persons whom the alleged payments were made do not find a mention in full. they have been shown in abbreviated form. Only certain ‘letters’ have been written against their names which are within the knowledge of only the scribe of the said diaries as to what they stand for and whom they refer to.” 20. Mr. Sibal, the learned counsel for the Jains, did not dispute that the spiral note books and the small pads are ‘books’ within the meaning of Section 34. He, however, strongly disputed the admissibility of those books in evidence under the aforesaid section on the ground that they were neither books of account nor they were regularly kept in the course of business. he submitted that at best it could be said that those books were memoranda kept by a person for his own benefit. According to Mr. Sibal, in business parlance ‘account’ means a formal statement of money transactions between parties arising out of contractual or fiduciary relationship. Since the books in question did not reflect any such relationship and, on the contrary, only contained entries of monies received from one set of persons and payment thereof to another set of persons it could not be said, by any stretch of imagination that they were books of account, argued Mr. Sibal. He next contended that even if it was assumed for argument's sake that the above books were books of account relating to a business still they would not be admissible under Section 34 as they were not regularly kept. It was urged by him that the words ‘regularly kept' mean that the entries in the books were contemporaneously made at the time the transactions took place but a cursory glance of the books would show that the y JAIN M RA onurTase Na mh TRAN NGS our 33 18 entries were made therein long after the purported transactions took place. In support of his contentions he also relied upon the dictionary meanings of the words ‘account’ and ‘regularly kept. 282. With respect to evidentiary value of regular account book, this Court has laid down in V.C. Shukla, thus: (SCC p.433, para 37) | "37. In Beni Vs. Bisan Dayal [ A. I. R 1925 Nagpur 445] it was | observed that entries in book 5 of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence | for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind | the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal Vs. Ram Rakha [A.I.R. 1953 Pepsu 113] the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be relevant and to have been prove, said that the rule as laid down in Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of business re relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is not, therefore, enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts. 282. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under Section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the 6.9 6.10. Wade #3. 34 19 transactions mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. The entire prosecution based upon such entries which led to the investigation was quashed by this Court.” It is established in law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a sheet of paper containing typed / handwritten entries and in loose form, not shown to form part of the books of accounts regularly maintained by the assessee or his business entities, do not constitute material evidence. Thus, the action taken by the Revenue against the assessee based on the material contained in the diaries/loose sheets, are contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In that view of the matter, impugned notices issued under Section 153C of the Act, based on the loose sheets/diaries are contrary to law, which require to be set aside as the same are void and illegal. Deaf & Dumb Document: Kindly consider that the satisfaction note refers to document which is said to be a WhatsApp image wherein it is mentioned “as on 17/04/2013" and that the Flat No. G-41 was sold to P.C. Jain at S No. 27 of the image. However, the assessee alone has not booked the Flat and on the contrary, he and his son both had jointly booked the flat. That document is purely deaf and dumb document as it does not carry full name of assessee and even the buyers, no date of transaction is mentioned, simultaneously no Project/Property detail pertains on this sheet is available and alleged amount is also not recorded in its completeness therefore each and every information seem dubious and can be drawn a different presumption that of allegation as alleged by your good self. The said document is thus nothing but a deaf and dumb document on which no reliance can be placed. 7.4. 7.6. 35 20 It is relevant to refer to the case of Nishant Construction (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA NO. 1502/AHD/2015), wherein it is held that, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, loose sheet can at the most be termed as “dumb document” which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not be relied upon and made the basis of addition. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Panaji Bench of ITAT in the case of Abhay Kumar Bharamgouda Patil v. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 377, wherein the judgment of the Apex Court was relied upon. It is further relevant to refer to a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of PCIT v, G. Lakshmi Aruna (2023) 150 taxmann.com 107 (Karnataka) dated 31.03.2023, in which it was held: "Section 153C, read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other person (Satisfaction note) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Whether assessment year relevant to financial year in which satisfaction note is recorded under section 153C, will be taken as year of search for purposes of clauses (a) and (b) of section 153A(1) by making reference to first proviso to section 153C(1) - Held, yes — Whether period of 6 years stipulated in section 153C has to be construed with reference to date of handing over of documents to Assessing Officer of assessee and not year of search ~ Held, yes - Whether recording of satisfaction note is pre-requisite and same must be prepared by Assessing Officer before he transmits records to other Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over such other person under section 153C ~ Held, yes ~ On 25.10.2010, a search under Section 132 was carried in case of one 'R’ and various documents belonging to assessee were found and seized - Consequently, Assessing Officer of searched person issued notice under section 153C against assessee for assessment years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 and a notice under section 143(3) for assessment year 2011-12 - Assessments were GAUTAM RAS (QArH cOMMISSOT AAJASTH?Y HIGH COL PUR JAIN NER RT BENCH G2. 8.3. 8.4, 36 21 concluded and income of assessee was assessed ~ Tribunal set aside assessment order and held that there was no satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer of searched person, which is mandatorily required for issuing a notice under section 153C - Whether since satisfaction note was not recorded by Assessing Officer of searched person, Tribunal had rightly quashed assessment on account of lack of jurisdiction ~ Held, yes (paras 45 and 49) (in favour of assessee) Opportunity of Cross Examination; In the present case, the revenue is seeking to rely on one document along with the statements of searched person to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. Simultaneously the statement provided by your good-self NOWHERE indicates acceptance of the so-called on-money transactions by the searched person. Furthermore, we could not locate EVEN a single question and answer which remotely suggests the allegations made against the assessee. Without being prejudiced with our aforementioned submissions, if this document is being correlated to the assessee on the face of such statements than firstly opportunity of cross examination of such person should be provided for verifying the allegation. No suspicious documents should be used against the assessee without providing opportunity of cross examination to him, it leads to violation of principles of Natural Justice. Hon’ole Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunita Dhadda (SLP dismissed) has held Denial of natural justice - Adaition of on money’ received with respect to subject land of the assessee which was evidence by the document seized during search u/s 132 - non making available opportunity of cross-examining - Held that:- Taking into consideration the observation made by the Tribunal regarding not allowing cross- 22 ation of Mr. Thakkar from whose documents the amount is alleged to have been taken In the interest of the assessee- the finding recorded by the Tribunal is just answered in favour of the of the assessee examin In that view of the matter and proper and issues is against the department. dings are liable to be declared without gainst the settled law declared by the Hon‘ble 4 Hon’ble Jurisdictional Supreme Court. g.5. Hence, complete procee jurisdiction as is a Jurisdictional High Court an entioned flaws the subjected proceedings being ex-facie ed. Needless to say, incase YOu king order disposing the legal In view of aforem iNegal, void-ab-initio, may Kindly Be dropp wish to proceed then Kindly pass @ SP&2 objections raised by the assesse®: Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Prakash Chandra Jain Siddharth Ranka Siddharth Ranka/Ashok Kumar Gupta AIR Note: Incase copy of any judgment referr let us know. ee ‘ed hereinabove, iS required, kindly t- Dacsmentidomeation He, 38 | ANNEXURE C/3 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMINISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR Ta, PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN | | $-3, JYOTI NAGAR EXTENSION L BEHIND AMROOD BAGH, JAIPUR 02008 Rajasthan Ina PAN: Assessment Year: | Dated: DIN & Lotlor No : AAUPISB7AF | 2021-22 2710212024 | ITBAJASTIF/17/2023-24/1061586207(1) Siri Madam M/s, Sublect, Sub Disposing of objection raised during the asscssment proceedings ws 153C of the Act for AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22 as per direction of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur in D. Civil Writ Petition no, 1592/2024 ~reg- Sub: Disposing of objection raised during the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act for AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22 as per direction of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 1592/2024 -reg- ~ Notices uls 153C are without jurisdiction and barred by limitation The notices u/s 153C issued in the case of the assessee are well within the Jurisdiction and not barred by limitation of time as by Finance Act, 2017, amendment was made to section 153A as well as 153C of the Act, simultaneously, empowering the Assessing Officer to make assessment not only for six preceding assessment years but for the relevant assessment year or years. Thus, effectively, this amendment to sections 183A and 153C of the Act allows the Assessing Officer to make assessment for the same set of assessment years, both in case of searched Person as well as the person other than the searched person. Therefore, in this case ihe notices issued Us 193C for the block period starting from AY 2018-16 to ay 2021-22 are well within time and are not barred by limitation of time. Further, There is no monetary limit defined in the Act for 'ssuance of notice u/s 153C of the Act ~

    You might also like