Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5) The IT dept recorded statements of (i). Appellant on 13-9-13 (PB/96-100) and of (ii). Mr. Bhau Tukaram Khillari (staff of the appellant who took the cash to the Aangadia) on 13-9-13 (PB/127-128) and of (iii). Mr. Hiten Gandhi (staff of Angadia Suresh Prajapati) on 4-7-13 (PB/129-130) & everyone confirmed that the said cash of Rs 1,02,98,5007- belonged to the appellant and was given to the Aangadia.

6) Mr. Sureshbhai Prajapati, the Angadia was assessed at Ahmedabad & Appellant at Mumbai. Ideally, in such a situation , both the cases ought to have been centralized at Mumbai or Ahmedabad u/s 127(2) & assessments done at one place u/s 153 A or 153C to determine who is the true owner of said cash seized. This was not done.

7) This has lead to the critical legal issue in this Appeal, namely " If as per Income tax Act the same income cannot be taxed twice and has to be assessed in one persons hands, then it is also equally important that it should be assessed in the correct persons hand, based on evidence & not on First-come- First-assessed basis ". The AO recognizes this anomaly in para 7 of the impugned asst order dt : 29-3-16 but still gave credence to the earlier assessed Asst order dt: 27-7-15 of the Aangadia done at Ahmedabad. Hence though the income of 1.03 crs was assessed in the hands of the Aangadia it was assessed in the hands of the wrong person without any evidence and against the statements of various persons and the Angadia himself and even when the Aangadia filed a revised return withdrawing this claim in his revised return filed on 20-4-15. Presumably the only reason for assessing this income (by the Ahmedabad AO) in the hands of the Angadia was his first statement on 4-7-13 and 5-7-13 or reasons beyond the comprehension of the appellant.

9) Appellant filed his return on 13-8-15 and was assessed on protective basis on this 1.03 crs because as per AO, the Angadia was already assessed earlier on 27-7-15 at Ahmedabad on substantive basis. Refer para 7 of impugned asst order. None of the glaring statements of any person/staff, background of the appellant or books of accounts/bills/evidences were considered. What only mattered was that since the Angadia was already substantively assed at Ahmedabad, the Appellant was assessed on protective basis.

12) Appellant in his own crude way and in Hindi filed over 54 grievances letters , till the PMO, on this lack of co-ordination and malafide state of affairs involving various IT officers (PB/131-153 & PB/180-187). He was constantly echoing the fact that the said seized cash belonged to him based on statements of various persons, retraction of the Angadia, books of accounts and bills etc. But nothing happened.

13) The appellant also wrote to the PCIT, Ahmedabad to invoke Sec. 263 to concluded substantive assessment of the Angadia vide letter dt : 5-2-18 (PB/188) there being time till 31-3-18, but that was seemingly ignored.