Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"A search and seizure operation, was carried on Gee Ispat Group of cases on 7th January, 2010. In the course of search various premises were covered. Large number of 'incriminating' documents and loose papers were found and seized. Examination of pages no. 29 & 30 of annexure A-ll, seized by party ZO-1, from the premises of M/s Gee Ispat Private Limited, reveals an account between M/s. Esteem Textiles Private Limited & Gee Ispat Private, Limited. Further page no. 4 of annexure AS seized from the same premises reveals investments made by M/s Esteem Textiles Private Limited in the share capital of M/s. Gee Ispat Private Limited. Further details are not completely available Annexure A-1, page no. 28 exhibits an investment of Rs. 5 lac in the share capital of M/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. No Warrant of Authorization was issued in the name of M/s. Esteem Textiles Private Limited, thus no action in the case of the assessee company could be initiated under section 153A of the Act. On the basis of documents found and seized belonging to M/s Esteem Textiles Private Limited. I am satisfied that the case of the assessee company is covered under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, notices under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are issued for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10.

3.9 The second document namely page 4 of Annexure A-l is a handwritten list of Share capital and loan. In the said list, the name "Esteem Textile" is appearing at serial no.6. No amount has been written nor is there any indication about the ownership of this document. In the absence of such clues, there is no reason to believe that the said document belonged to the appellant company. In fact it appears as though in the said document someone has made a list of shareholders who contributed share capital and list of parties who have given loan. There is no mention of this document in the assessment order. Further there are no evidences to show this document belonged to the appellant. The list appears to be the list of shareholders of M/s Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and hence the said document could not be belonging to the appellant. Hence it has to be held that this document belonged to the party from whose premises it has been recovered and seized and not to the appellant.