Rajeev Mujumdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bhopal
[Citation -2020-LL-0304-108]

Citation 2020-LL-0304-108
Appellant Name Rajeev Mujumdar
Respondent Name Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bhopal
Court HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/03/2020
Assessment Year 2013-14
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags assumption of jurisdiction • warrant of authorization • incriminating material • unaccounted investment • undisclosed investment • capital contribution • search and seizure • unaccounted income • undisclosed income • loose paper seized • seized document • seized material
Bot Summary: The Assessing Officer while rejecting the submission of the assessee and making addition of 87,60,000/- in the declared income in paras 9.6 and 9.7 of the assessment order dated 30.11.2016 had concluded as under:- 9.6 The submission of the assessee has been considered but the same is not acceptable due to the following reasons: i). 9.7 In the light of facts discussion above, it is clear that the assessee has made unaccounted investment of 32,60,000/- in the firm namely M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders and 55,00,000/- in the firm namely M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company and the same is added to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. The capital account produced by the assessee in those two partnership Firms, which carried the entry of capital of 30,00,000/- each, were also corroborated and on that basis the Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt to the assessee by holding that out of the total amount of 85,00,000/-, the amount of 60,00,000/- which was appearing in the seized material, stood duly explained with the capital accounts of the partnership Firms, namely, Regal Samarth Construction Company and Regal Samarth Krishna Builders and further the remaining amount of 2,60,000/-, which was paid through cheque, also stood duly explained and since the Revenue failed to produce any material evidence to the contrary, the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of 62,60,000/- was deleted. On perusal of the same we find that in the firm Regal Samarth Construction Company the assessee has introduced capital of 30,00,000/- through cheque during financial year 2012-13 and similarly in Regal Samarth Construction Company also assessee being 30 partner has introduced capital by cheque/cash of 30,00,000/-. In the alleged account items appearing on the left hand side is the capital introduced by the assessee which means it was the fund brought in by the assessee in the project and on the right hand side the figure of the amount to be taken by the assessee from Chitrakoot project. Since the assessee is one of the working partner in Regal Samarth Construction Company and the alleged transaction have direct nexus with the assessee but during the course of proceedings before both the lower authorities and before us assessee failed to produce any material evidence in support of his claim that the alleged amount of 85,00,000/- is not having any ingredient of undisclosed/unrecorded income. So we are of the view that 85,00,000/- is the amount to be received by the assessee and it can be purely unaccounted income or it can be an amount which comprises of income and capital introduced by the assessee.


ITA-7-2020 (1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (Division Bench) ITA No. 7/2020 APPELLANT : Rajeev Mujumdar Versus RESPONDENT : Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Bhopal Coram: Hon ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, Chief Justice Hon ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge Appearance: Shri G.N. Purohit, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for Respondent-Revenue on advance copy. JUDGMENT (Oral) [04.03.2020] Per: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Chief Justice: This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) has been preferred by assessee against order dated 13.09.2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ) in ITA (SS) No. 203/Ind/2018 whereby his appeal against order dated 26.11.2018 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity CIT(A) ] has been partly allowed deleting only addition of `65,20,000/- as against total addition of `87,60,000/- made by Assessing Officer towards unaccounted investment. appeal relates to assessment year 2013-14. ITA-7-2020 (2) 2. appellant-assessee has claimed following substantial questions of law for determination by this Court:- (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case finding of Tribunal is perverse, holding that `22,40,000/- is income of appellant, without appreciating evidence on record, that loose paper was not found from possession of appellant and Section 292C of Act is not attracted, addition of `22,40,000/- as income in hands of assessee? (ii) Whether under facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was correct in holding that document LPS-1 page no.4 as document belonging to assessee without appreciating fact that no reasons under Section 153C of Act were recorded by Assessing Officer and not spelt out anywhere in proceedings including assessment order, assumption of jurisdiction was correct in law? (iii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case LPS-1 page no.4 being not in handwriting of assessee not recovered from premises of assessee could be treated as belonging to assessee in spite of assessee s specific denial that such document does not belong to him whether finding of Tribunal is correct in law? 3. Briefly stated, facts of present case, as borne out from record are that appellant-assessee is Proprietor of M/s Samarth Developers and Builders, engaged in business of developing residential cum commercial complex in his individual capacity and also as partner by joining others in partnership. respondent-Department conducted search under Section 132(1) of Act in business and residential premises of appellant and Shri K.L. Sharma, Neeraj Sharma as well as other builder ITA-7-2020 (3) Firms and made seizure of certain books of accounts and documents on 12.08.2014. Survey was conducted in business premises of M/s Envo Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. Department, thereafter, issued notice to assessee under Section 153A of Act. In response, appellant submitted his return (Annexure A-1) for block period including return for assessment year 2013-14. Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notice dated 25.08.2016 (Annexure A-2) under Section 142(1) of Act. appellant submitted reply to said notice on 06.09.2016 and 07.10.2016 vide Annexure A-3. Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure A-4) framed assessment under Section 153A read with 143(3) of Act and made addition of `87,60,000/-. Feeling dissatisfied with order, appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A), which was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure A-6). On appeal being preferred by appellant against order of CIT(A), Tribunal held that only addition of `22,40,000/-, which was found to be unaccounted investment, was to be sustained and thus, appeal was allowed to that extent. In this manner, present appeal has been filed by appellant-assessee. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that alleged loose paper on basis of which income of `22,40,000/- is associated with appellant is neither in handwriting of appellant nor was it found from his possession. It is undated document which was written and maintained by somebody from M/s Envo Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. and words `22,40,000/- Lena Hai found to be written on it means that said sum was receivable by somebody in M/s Envo Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA-7-2020 (4) and not by assessee. assessee was partner in M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders Company. He joined said Firm on 20.11.2011 and retired from there on 01.04.2012. assessee s capital of `30.00 Lac was in Regal Samarth Krishna Builders Company and another `30.00 Lac was appearing in Firm M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company, which has also been appreciated by Tribunal in impugned order. appellant has no interest or connection whatsoever with Triveni Project, which name is recorded in such loose paper. Therefore, finding of Tribunal that `22,40,000/- is income of appellant is perverse and without appreciating evidence on record. On basis of said contention, learned counsel argued that Section 292C of Act is not attracted in present case. It was further submitted that no reason, as required under Section 153C of Act, has been recorded by Assessing Officer with regard to document LPS-1 page-4 being of assessee and, therefore, assumption of jurisdiction is not correct in law. In this connection, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mechmen, (2015) 280 CTR (MP) 198, Indore Bench in ITA No.53/2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Shri Pukhraj Soni) decided on 06.02.2019; Delhi High Court judgments in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2014) 270 CTR (Del) 467, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals (P) Ltd., (2016) 386 ITR 680 (Del); decision of Bombay High Court in Director of Income Tax vs. Ingram Micro (India) Exports Pte Ltd., (2015) 234 Taxman 464 (Bom); and Allahabad High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopi Apartment, (2014) 270 CTR (All) 447. ITA-7-2020 (5) 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused impugned orders. 6. Questions No.(i) and (iii) being interconnected, are taken up together for discussion. It may be noticed that search and seizure operations under Section 132(1) of Act were carried out in residential and business premises of main persons/partners and associated Concerns of M/s Regal Homes and M/s Dwarkadheesh Haveli Builders Group of Bhopal on 12.08.2014. They are collectively referred to as Regal Homes Group . It is promoted by Shri Krishan Lal Sharma (Shri K.L. Sharma). group is engaged in real estate sector. Some of other partners of Regal Homes Group namely, Shri Suresh Kumar Maheshwari and Smt. Sunita Maheshwari; Shri S.S. Yadav and Shri Rajeev Majumdar appellant- assessee were also covered in search operations. assessee being member of Regal Homes Group is one of partner of M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders, M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company and M/s Regal Samarth Infrastructure Company. search and seizure was carried out in premises of appellant-assessee in pursuance of warrant of authorization under Section 132 of Act issued by Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Bhopal for A-44, Aakriti Garden, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal. 7. At time of survey at office of M/s Envo Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 6/4, Chittor Complex, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, Page No.1 to 8 of LPS-I (at some places mentioned as LPI-I) was impounded. These papers contained detailed working of Triveni Heights Project of Firm M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders and amounts paid for purchase of land for project as well as ledger of partners of Firm and ITA-7-2020 (6) payments/contribution made by them. In this account appearing under head Majumdar ji at page 4 of LPS-I following matter (converted into English version) is appearing:- ` 60,00,000=00 Cash + Ch ` 85,00,000=00 To be taken from Chitrakoot ` 2,60,000=00 Ch boundary w. ` 62,60,000=00 ` 85,00,000=00 `22,40,000=00 balance to be taken 8. assessee was partner holding 20% share in partnership Firm M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders, which was executing Triveni Heights project. assessee became partner in said Firm on 20.10.2011 and retired therefrom on 01.04.2012. assessee had capital of `30,00,000/- as on 15.06.2012 in said Firm which was receivable by him. assessee was also partner in M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company having 20% share (which stood enhanced to 30% w.e.f. 01.04.2012) also engaged in business of real estate. total capital invested by assessee as on 15.06.2012 was again `30,00,000/-. Thus, total investment of assessee in these two Firms as on 15.06.2012 was `60,00,000/-. Besides, `2,60,000/- was paid by cheque for boundary wall. 9. Assessing Officer while rejecting submission of assessee and making addition of `87,60,000/- in declared income in paras 9.6 and 9.7 of assessment order dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure A-4) had concluded as under:- 9.6 submission of assessee has been considered but same is not acceptable due to following reasons: i). details contained in pages 1 to 8 of LPS-1 is very much systematic as details mentioned in one page matches with other page. ITA-7-2020 (7) ii). amounts of `21,82,500/- and `2,45,000/- mentioned against registry expenses and receipts at page no.8 are also exactly matching with registry made for purchase of land from Tanwani family. iii) details contained in these papers are very much systematic and contain total land cost along with percentage and amount of share of each partner. amounts received from each partner till that date in cash and cheque and amount due from them are also mentioned. iv) Shri K.L. Sharma was also one of partners in firm M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders and thus pages 1 to 8 of LPS-1 also contained details of amounts paid/contributed in cash and cheque by Shri K.L. Sharma. During course of search at his office premises, Shri K.L. Sharma was confronted with these papers. In response, Shri K.L. Sharma stated that these pages are related to his firm M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders in which project Triveni Heights was launched and for which land was purchased from Tanwani family. entries in these papers are complete details of land purchased. He further submitted that according to page no.8 of LPS-I, total cost of land is `8,18,48,270/-. He stated that as his shareholding in firm was of 30%, hence, payable amount from his end was calculated at `2,45,54,481/-. expenses on registry and receipt of registry were `21,82,500/- and `2,45,000/- respectively, which were paid by him through his capital. According to details of his ledger, he paid `1,37,28,230/- to firm against purchase of land. However, he submitted that he also contributed remaining amount of `1,08,31,251/- in cash in firm as his capital contribution which is not entered in his books of account. He admitted that he had paid this amount out of his undisclosed income and thus he offered `1,08,31,251/- as his undisclosed investment for assessment year 2012-13. v) It is to be noted that page no.4 of LPS-1 is ledger of Shri Rajeev Majumdar. On right side of page-4, it has been written as `85,00,000/- to be taken from Chitrakoot . Chitrakoot is name of project, run by Firm M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company in which Shri Rajeev Majumdar is also partner. ITA-7-2020 (8) vi) details of Triveni Heights & Chitrakoot cannot be said as rough working as both projects are run by firms in which Shri Rajeev Majumdar is partner. vii) assessee has submitted that amount of `60,00,000/- may be sum of addition in capital in firm namely M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders & M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company amounting to `30,00,000/- each. But same is not acceptable as on page no.4, it is clearly mentioned that amount of `60,00,000/- is related to project Triveni Heights only which is run by firm M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders. same is confirmed in page no.3 & 7 of LPS-1 also as mentioned above. 9.7 In light of facts & discussion above, it is clear that assessee has made unaccounted investment of `32,60,000/- (`62,60,000/- minus `30,00,000/- which has been paid by cheque) in firm namely M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders and `55,00,000/- (`85,00,000/- as per seized document minus `30,00,000/- which is accounted investment) in firm namely M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company and same is added to total income of assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. 10. On appeal by assessee, CIT(A) affirmed assessment order. relevant observations in para 4.2 of said order read, thus:- 4.2 Ground No.2 for AY 2013-14:- Through this ground of appeal appellant has challenged addition of `87,60,000/- on account of unaccounted investment. During course of survey at office premises of M/s Envo Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. at 6/4 Chittor Complex, MP Nagar, Bhopal page no.1 to 8 of LPI-I was impounded. These pages contain detailed working of project Triveni heights of M/s Regal Samarth Krishan Builders. seized paper contains details of land purchased and payments made to various individuals. On page 4 of LPI-I it has been mentioned under main heading Shri Rajeev Majumdar and `85,00,000/- is to be taken from Chitrakoot. It is important to note that project Chitrakoot is run by M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company and appellant is one of partner of M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company. Appellant during appellant proceedings, submitted that loose paper seized LPI-4 shows that someone is suppose to receive `85,00,000/- from ITA-7-2020 (9) chitrakoot and not by assessee. Since assessee is one of working partner in M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company, therefore, he cannot deny fact that there exists nexus between amount mentioned on loose paper and project Chitrakoot. Further, appellant failed to produce any material evidence in support of his claim neither during assessment proceedings nor at time of appellate proceedings. working in loose paper contains total land cost along with percentage and share of each partner and amount received from each partner through cash and cheque has been mentioned. loose paper has been found from premises of Shri KL Sharma who is one of partner in said project. simultaneous searches have been carried out at premises of appellant and Shri KL Sharma on ground that both are common partners in firms and there is every likely hood that paper belonging to one person might be found at premises of other person. entries in these papers are related to land purchased where appellant is one of partner. page 4 of loose paper is ledger account of appellant whereas it has been written as `85,00,000/- to be taken from Chitrakoot . Chitrakoot is name of project, run by firm M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company in which appellant is partner. details of project Triveni heights and project Chitrakoot cannot be considered as rough working because in firms appellant is one of partner. Therefore, AO correctly held in para 9.6 of assessment order that loose paper cannot be said to be rough working paper because in both projects i.e. Triveni heights and Chitrakoot appellant is working partner. Thus in absence of any conclusive documentary proof, addition made by AO amounting to `87,60,000/- is confirmed. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Dismissed. 11. learned Tribunal after marshalling through record found that loose papers bearing LPS-1 page 1 to 8, seized during course of survey at office of M/s Envo Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. among accounts of various group concerns and partners, also contained accounts under different heads, namely, Triveni, K.L. Sharmaji, S.S. Yadavji and Mujumdarji. At page 5, under account of S.S. Yadav, remark Mujumdarji-vale is also found to be mentioned. On left hand/debit ITA-7-2020 (10) side, figures of `60,00,000/- + `2,60,000/- are mentioned whereas on right hand side amount of `85,00,000/- (Chitrakoot Se Lena) is written and it is also written `22,40,000/- balance to be taken . On basis of these loose papers, which contained name of assessee, addition of `87,60,000/- was made. It was further found that assessee had entered into partnership in Regal Samarth Construction Company, which was running its business of construction of flats in name and style as Chitrakoot . He was also one of partner in Firm Regal Samarth Krishna Builders as on 20.10.2011, which was running project in name of Triveni Heights . capital account produced by assessee in those two partnership Firms, which carried entry of capital of `30,00,000/- each, were also corroborated and on that basis Tribunal gave benefit of doubt to assessee by holding that out of total amount of `85,00,000/-, amount of `60,00,000/- which was appearing in seized material, stood duly explained with capital accounts of partnership Firms, namely, Regal Samarth Construction Company and Regal Samarth Krishna Builders and further remaining amount of `2,60,000/-, which was paid through cheque, also stood duly explained and since Revenue failed to produce any material evidence to contrary, addition made by Assessing Officer to extent of `62,60,000/- was deleted. 12. assessee introduced capital in partnership Firm Regal Samarth Construction Company, carrying out construction work as Chitrakoot Project and therefore, it cannot be said that he has no nexus with Chitrakoot Project . Once on basis of same entries, Tribunal gave benefit of doubt to appellant by deleting addition of ITA-7-2020 (11) `62,60,000/- out of `85,00,000/-, it cannot be said that appellant had no connection with seized material. In such circumstances, Tribunal had concluded that remaining balance of `22,40,000/-, which is taken to be unaccounted investment of assessee is to be added to his income, which was exactly same balance which would remain when explained addition of `62,60,000/- is deleted out of `85,00,000/-. However, contention as sought to be raised in these questions that no presumption against appellant under Section 292C of Act could be raised, is noted to be rejected. Authorities below have not placed reliance or drawn support of Section 292C of Act. Instead, on appreciation of material and keeping in view entire facts and circumstances, concluded that there existed nexus between appellant and seized material (i.e. LPS-I page 4). Therefore, since appellant has failed to give any account for said unaccounted investment of `22,40,000/-, we do not find any illegality or perversity in findings recorded by Tribunal in that behalf. view taken by Tribunal on appreciation of material is plausible one. Thus, reliance of assessee on Shri Pukhraj Soni s case (supra) is of no assistance to his case. relevant extract of findings recorded by Tribunal reads, thus:- 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused records placed before us. assessee s sole grievance is on account of addition for unaccounted investment at `86,60,000/- made by Ld. A.O and duly confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). assessee is part of Regal Homes group which was subject to search u/s 132 of Act on 12.8.14. Various documents were seized from business concerns subject to search. In one of such documents found in office of Envo Promoters Development Pvt. Ltd appearing bearing No. LPS-1 page 1 to 8 contained accounts of various group concerns and partners associated therewith. Some of such accounts are under different head namely Triveni, K.L. ITA-7-2020 (12) Sharmaji, S.S. Yadavji, Mazumdarji, Triveni Kisan account etc. issue raised in instant appeal is confined to transaction appearing under name Mazumdar who is assessee i.e. Rajeev Mazumdar. In this account appearing under head Mazumdarji, following matter (converted to English version) was appearing; ` 60,00,000=00 Cash + Ch ` 85,00,000=00 To be taken from Chitrakoot ` 2,60,000=00 Ch boundary w. ` 62,60,000=00 ` 85,00,000=00 `22,40,000=00 balance to be taken *** *** *** 12. As far as figures of `60,00,000/- and `2,60,000/- which is on left hand/debit side we observe that assessee entered into partnership in Regal Samarth Krishna Construction Company which was executing project of construction of flats in name of Chitrakoot . assessee also entered into partnership with other concern Regal Samarth Krishna Builders on 20.10.11 which was running another project named Triveni Heights . At Page No. 13 to 21 of paper book filed on 13.3.2019, copies of capital account of assessee in above stated partnership firms are placed. On perusal of same we find that in firm Regal Samarth Construction Company assessee has introduced capital of `30,00,000/- through cheque during financial year 2012-13 and similarly in Regal Samarth Construction Company also assessee being 30% partner has introduced capital by cheque/cash of `30,00,000/-. So there remains no dispute that amount of `60,00,000/- which is appearing in seized material, stands duly explained with capital accounts of partnership firms and supports contention of Ld. Counsel for assessee that `60,00,000/- is duly accounted for in books of accounts. Remaining amount of `2,60,000/- have also been paid by cheque as appearing in seized document, thus figure of `2,60,000/- also stands duly explained by assessee. 13. Now as far as amount of `85,00,000/- appearing on right hand side of account appearing in seized document with particular to be taken from Chitrakoot , we observe that Chitrakoot is project of construction of flats executed by partnership firm Regal Samarth Construction Company in which assessee was partner along with Mr. K.L. Sharma and others. In this partnership firm assessee introduced capital of `30,00,000/- during financial year 2012-13. So word ITA-7-2020 (13) chitrakoot is having direct nexus with Chitrakoot project which was carried on by partnership firm Regal Samarth Construction Company. For phrase to be taken from Chitrakoot out of amount of `85,00,000/-, contentions made on behalf of assessee are that this particular entry connotes liability on part of Chitrakoot project from which assessee is entitled to receive back and so it can be treated as income. However, in our view phrase to be taken from Chitrakoot can be looked from another perspective also. In alleged account items appearing on left hand side is capital introduced by assessee which means it was fund brought in by assessee in project and on right hand side figure of amount to be taken by assessee from Chitrakoot project. So there is fair possibility that against investment of `62,60,000/- assessee is entitled to receive `85,00,000/- from project. This sum of `85,00,000/- may comprise of capital introduced by assessee and profits or it can purely be income. 14. Since assessee is one of working partner in Regal Samarth Construction Company and alleged transaction have direct nexus with assessee but during course of proceedings before both lower authorities and before us assessee failed to produce any material evidence in support of his claim that alleged amount of `85,00,000/- is not having any ingredient of undisclosed/unrecorded income. So we are of view that `85,00,000/- is amount to be received by assessee and it can be purely unaccounted income or it can be amount which comprises of income and capital introduced by assessee. Since revenue has not brought any other material evidence to prove that alleged amount is purely income assessee certainly deserves benefit of doubt and further since below alleged account itself sum of `22,40,000/- is mentioned as amount referred as balance to be for payment. This amount of `22,40,000/- is difference between `85,00,000/- (i.e. amount to be taken less `62,60,000/- amount invested by assessee), therefore addition for unaccounted investment in our view cannot be more than `22,40,000/-. We therefore in given facts and in view of our discussions herein above are of considered view that alleged addition of unaccounted investment needs to be sustained only to extent of `22,40,000/- and thus finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and assessee gets relief of `65,20,000/-. Ground No.1 of assessee is partly allowed. ITA-7-2020 (14) 13. Thus, question No.(i) and (iii) as claimed, cannot be held to be substantial questions of law and are not based on any incorrect and improper reading of evidence on record. 14. Taking up question No.(ii), as claimed by assessee that no reason has been recorded by Assessing Officer with regard to loose papers (LPS-1 page-4) being of assessee and therefore, Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction in terms of Section 153C of Act, it is seen that it is for first time this contention has been raised before this Court. It may be noted that premises of Regal Homes Group was subjected to search under Section 132 of Act on 12.08.2014. residential premises of assessee were also searched together with group Concerns including M/s Regal Samarth Construction Company and Regal Samarth Krishna Builders in which appellant-assessee had interest as partner therein. Thus, in present case, Section 153A of Act was attracted and accordingly, assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of Act had been framed. Since search had taken place at residence of assessee as well, thus, no proceedings for framing assessment under Section 153C of Act arose. Therefore, Section 153C of Act had no relevancy in facts and circumstances of present case. Consequently, it is concluded that question No.(ii) as claimed, is misconceived. In this view of matter, judgments in Mechmen s case (supra), Pepsico India Holdings case (supra), Nikki Drugs & Chemical s case (supra), Ingram Micro (India) Exports case (supra) and Gopi Apartment s case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for assessee are of no help to appellant, as all these cases related to framing of assessment under Section 153C of Act where ITA-7-2020 (15) premises of assessee had not been searched but incriminating material had been found during search against assessee for taking assessment proceedings under Section 153C of Act. 15. In view of foregoing discussion, no substantial question of law arises in present appeal. We find no reason to interfere with order impugned herein. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) (Vijay Kumar Shukla) Chief Justice Judge S/ Digitally signed by SACHIN CHAUDHARY Date: 2020.04.10 16:19:12 +05'30' Rajeev Mujumdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bhopal
Report Error