Asstt. CIT, Yamuna Nagar v. Kishore Lal Balwant Rai
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Search and seizure - Block Assessment -Disclosure of facts to assessee
Held: AO required to record his satisfaction on basis of material seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A that undisclosed income belongs to a person other than person put to search or requisition under section 158BD and such satisfaction had to be recorded in writing by AO of person with respect to whom search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A had been made.
Notice under section 158BD was required to be issued by AO of person other than person put to search or requisition that after transmission of relevant material from first mentioned AO, i.e., Assessing Officer of person put to search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A.
Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 158BD
A.Y. : Block period ending on 14-9-1999
Decision: In favour of assessee.
Case Law Analysis:Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 / 80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 11), CBI v. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 (para 13), Khopade Kisanrao Manikrao v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 74 ITD 25 (Pune) (TM) (para 13), Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 222 (Punj. & Har.) (para 13), Monga Metals (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 67 TTJ (All.) 247/ 111 Taxman 175 (Mag.) (para 14), Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) (para 16), Bansal Strips (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 99 ITD 177 (Delhi) (para 16), Napar Drugs (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 98 ITD 285 (Delhi) (TM) (para 17.1), R.P. Vashisht v. Dy. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 301 (Punj. & Har.) (para 17.1), Mukund V. Kapadia v. ITO [2002] 82 ITD 489 (Mum.) (para 19), Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341/ 159 Taxman 258 (SC) (para 19), Amity Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 75 / 142 Taxman 160 (Delhi) (para 19), Janki Export International v. Union of India [2005] 278 ITR 296/ 145 Taxman 82 (Delhi) (para 19), Priya Blue Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 615 /[2002] 120 Taxman 696 (Guj.) (para 19), Khandubhai Vasanji Desai v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 73 / 103 Taxman 181 (Guj.) (para 19), Ved Parkash Sanjay Kumar v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 76 ITD 107 (Chd.) (para 19), Vijay Sehgal, HUF v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 100 ITD 560 (Asr.) (para 20), Y. Subbaraju & Co. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 118 (Bang.) (SB) (para 23), Arun Kumar v. Union of India [2006] 286 ITR 89 / 155 Taxman 659 (SC) (para 38) and R.K. Syal v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 113 Taxman 40 (Chd.) (Mag.) (para 54).
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Search and seizure - Block Assessment -Undisclosed income of any other person -
In course of search conducted at premises of a dalal (finance broker), a red bound bahi was seized. Statement of dalal was recorded to ascertain nature of entries contained in bahi and in statement, Dalal explained that bahi contained a recording of monies lent and borrowed by various people undertaken through him, and that he was earning dalali income/commission income from business of broking. Thereupon, AO deduced that assessee had borrowed money from said broker and had lent monies to various borrowers and earned interest thereon and found that entries recorded in bahi were not found recorded in regular books of account of assessee and, therefore, amount of loan along with interest earned thereon represented undisclosed income of assessee chargeable to tax under section 158BD, read with section 158BC, and, accordingly, made addition to its income. Held: Since, AO made addition on basis of statement of dalal which was not supported by any independent and corroborative evidence and, moreover, there was no such evidence available with revenue which could establish that entries in bahi represented honest and real transaction so as to inform that assessee actually transacted in money lending as per entries recorded in bahi, and hence, addition made by AO was deleted.
Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 158BD
A.Y. : Block period ending on 14-9-1999
Decision: In favour of assessee.