Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.2 In continuation to the above, the appellant filed a rejoinder on 29.02.2024 as under.

"3. Addl. Ground: 3 The reopening notice issued without application of mind and wrong assumption of facts 3.1 In the submission filed before Your Honour, it was submitted that at the time of recording of the reasons for reopening, the Ld. AO had unsigned copy of my statement recorded before the Police Authorities and other documents as mentioned in Para 3.2 of the submission dated 31.10.2023. Further, by placing reliance on my unsigned statement recorded before the police authority, FIR and statement recorded u/s 131 of Mr. Agrawal the Ld. AO erroneously concluded that Mr. Agrawal has filed an FIR against me alleging that I have taken loan from Mr. Agrawal's father to the tune of? 8.61 crores but failed to repay the same, 3.2 This is absolutely a wrong fact mentioned by the Ld. AO in the reasons as in none of the documents available before the Ld. AO relating to Mr. Agarwal, he has alleged that I have taken loan from him. This fact has been recorded without application of mind.

(iii) There are obvious inconsistencies in the dates of the hundis and of the cheques.

14. Re: Police Statement

(i) First of all, the Police Department itself has not even referred, much less relied upon, such alleged statement. In fact, interestingly, this statement is not found in the police records.

(ii) Pertinently, there is not even a reference to this statement in the criminal proceeding (including in the Charge Sheet) or in the civil proceeding launched by Mr. Agarwal.

(iii) There are inconsistencies in the signed and the unsigned statement.

"4.1.1 The contention of the appellant in the aforesaid submission is that the sole basis of initiation of the reassessment proceedings is the copy of the unsigned statement recorded by the police authority which was impounded during the course of survey action. Further, the appellant submitted that while recording the reasons for reopening, in Para 3, the AO has mentioned wrong facts. The AO in the said para stated that Shri Pankaj Radheshyam Agrawal has filed an FIR against Shri Sanjay Kasliwal on the issue that Shri Sanjay Kasliwal has taken loan from Late Radheshyam Agrawal to the tune of Rs. 8.61 crore but he has failed to repay it. Whereas, the contention of the appellant is that as per the FIR filed against him by Shri Agrawal, the allegation levelled is that the cash was given against the investment in the properties and not against the loan. Therefore, the submission of the appellant is that the reasons are recorded without application of mind and by recording wrong facts in reasons.

4.1.3 Further, in rejoinder to the comments of the AO, the appellant in written submission dated 29.02.2024 once again stated that at the time of recording of the reasons, the AO had in his possession-

i) Unsigned statement recorded by the police authority

ii) Appellant statement recorded during survey proceedings

iii) The official copy of the FIR filed by Mr. Agrawal Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal

iv) Statement recorded of Mr. Agrawal u/s 131 by DDIT (Inv) 4.1.4 The AO by placing reliance on the unsigned statement recorded by the police authority, FIR and statement recorded u/s 131 of Shri Agrawal, has erroneously concluded that Shri Agrawal has filed an FIR against the appellant alleging that he has taken loan from Shri Agrawal's father to the tune of Rs. 8.61 crores but failed to repay the same. The appellant further submitted that this is a wrong fact recorded by the AO in the reasons to believe. As per the appellant, in none of the documents available before the AO relating to Shri Agrawal, there is allegation that appellant had taken loan from Shri Agrawal.