| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | Prakash D. Naik J, S. C. Dharmadhikari J |
| SECTION(S): | 153C, 69C |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Search assessment, Undisclosed Income, unexplained expenditure |
| COUNSEL: | Nitesh Joshi |
| DATE: | June 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | June 29, 2017 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2009-10 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 69C/ 153C: An admission of the assessee which is retracted cannot be the basis of addition. The allegations made by the authorities have to be supported by actual cash passing hands. The addition cannot be sustained in the absence of material which would conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from the seized documents are transferred from one side to another and if the Revenue did not bring on record a single statement of the vendors of the land in different villages and if none of the sellers has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands | |
(i) The Tribunal considered the merits and once again, at great length. The particular argument revolving around the statement of Dilip Dherai and his answer to question No. 24 was also considered in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. Then, in paragraph 22, the Tribunal refers to the additions made under Section 69C. After reproducing Section 69C and adverting to the fact that Dilip Dherai has retracted his statement, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that merely on the strength of the alleged admission in the statement of Dilip Dherai, the additions could not have been made. The concurrent findings of fact would demonstrate that the essential ingredients of Section 69C of the IT Act enabling the additions were not satisfied. This is not a case of ‘no explanation’. Rather, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations made by the authorities are not supported by actual cash passing hands. The entire decision is based on the seized documents and no material has been referred which would conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from the seized documents are transferred from one side to another. In that regard, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not bring on record a single statement of the vendors of the land in different villages. None of the sellers has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal found that on both counts, namely, the legal issue, as also merits, the additions cannot be sustained.
(ii) We are of the opinion that the Revenue has rightly been faulted for its approach by the Tribunal. The above are pure findings of fact and consistent with the material placed on record. Thus, the jurisdiction and vesting in the Assessing Officer could have been exercised and the satisfaction in that regard was enough, are not matters which can be decided in the further appellate jurisdiction of this Court. It is not possible for us to reappraise and reappreciate the factual findings. The finding that Section 153C was not attracted and its invocation was bad in law is not based just on an interpretation of Section 153C but after holding that the ingredients of the same were not satisfied in the present case. That is an exercise carried out by the Tribunal as a last fact finding authority. Therefore, the finding is a mixed one. There is no substantial question of law arising from such an order and which alternatively considers the merits of the case as well.
Seems the AO or the revenue do not understand a document to be an evidence it ought to conclusively establish cash transacted and moved to hands to hands, if these kind of officers abound in the revenue, Indian Revenue services are in shambles so too very finance ministry itself , so it would be t=right on the part of the court to issue contempt of court notices to all the relevant authorities right from the AO, unless some punishments handed over there will be no change in the bureaucracy behavior, besides the hon court may also issue a contempt notices on all concerned for having these guys misused the constitutional provisions , for Art 265 talks on procedure laid down by law – what these guys did is ‘followed no procedure’ but used the procedure to be very ‘bad in law’ under the relevant sections of the tax act.
No point to be for the hon court to use judicial restraint constraints on itself; with all these kinds of lags, how does finance minister expects that ITAT to be under the complete control of the ministry by his so called finance Act recent sections the govt would decide on judicial members appointments , retirements, age and on retd high court judges – better minister better resign for he is unfit to be the finance minister, forthwith, this kind of man how he could run both finance and defence ministries – Modi may be out of mind where is the brain of this minster himself – Modi see by getting Trump hugs he would sell India – first sale is Air India, that will be followed by many, this great PM if bows down to US pharma lobby for its patents, i would call for the very resignation from PM for he is most inept PM worse than silent (moun) PM Mr Man mohan singh who kept quiet in all kinds of frauds simply passed under his nose.
I am sorry the Apex court failed to take suo moto action on PMs as the PMs are being first among equals in the cabinet so the ministers can be asked to resign by the parliament for inept and inefficient work if parliament does not work being the representatives of the people, the judiciary as the custodian of the constitution need not tolerate all funny actions and irresponsible work in their respective ministries for the inept and inefficient work can fall under prevention of corruption Act sec/13 too, and CBI can go on action like FBI in the USA enjoys as these investigation agencies are accountable to constitution and the people and not to PM of ministers if they fail, in their duties per Art 51A of Part IVA in the indian constitution, as the very parliament is not to be arbitrary as it is controlled by a well written indian constitution, unlike British unwritten constitution, where too house of Lords wring in powerful tools to wring the inefficient men in power if one reads Hamlyn lectures can understand where Lord Denning rightly brought forth salients, but we have to by due application of mind. indian courts too have copies of those lectures , more so very Bombay high court judges library too has, this observation without any malice on any, but in the interest of protecting the salients of the constitutional basic tenets here in india,